HYW Claimant Named Jean?

I vaguely remember that someone mentioned there were multiple claimants in the prelude to the Hundred Years War. The Plantagenet and the Valois claimants fought each other, but there were more than two claimants in the beginning before all but 2 backed off. Actually even Edward III backed off until his liege was a dick and made up bogus reasons to confiscate his land (and was a dick to the Gascons too) and then he was like "no I'm the king of France."

Was one of them named Jean? I want to know about this claimant.

What is the background of Jean-What's-his-face? Is he a titled noble, or a minor son of someone? Does he have a wikipeida page?
 
You mean King John Ist the Posthumous ? The poor babe died at five days. He was not a claimant though, but the uncontested King. Claimants in the early stages of the HYW (1328) were :

  1. Philippe, Count of Valois. Heir male of the Capetians
  2. Joan II, Queen of Navarra (died 1349) and her son Charles II (died 1387). Heir general to King Louis X.
  3. Joan III, Countess of Burguny (died 1349) and her son Philip, Count of Auvergne (died 1346). Heir General to King Philip V.
  4. Blanche of France (died 1382). Heir General to King Charles IV.
  5. Edward III, King of England. Heir of his own ambition.
 
It is a good line though. I'm going to save that one.
Yes but it makes his claim seem weaker than it was by the contemporary laws of France.
By male preferred primogeniture, and excluding female holders, Edward III is only outranked by Phillip of Burgundy, who's 5 years old.

Edit: in fact if we order by most recent kings we get:
  1. Male offspring of Blanche of France, Heir General to King Charles IV. NONE.
  2. Male offspring of Joan, III Countess of Burgundy, II Countess of Artois, Heir General to King Philip V. PHILLIP, Count of Auvergne, b1323.
  3. Male offspring of Joan II, Queen of Navarre, Heir General to King Louis X. Charles II, b1332, NOT YET BORN.
  4. Male offspring of Isabelle of France, eldest productive sister of Louis X, Phillip V, Charles IV. EDWARD III, King of England, b1312.
Edit2: The French nobles essentially had the choice of Queen Regnants, a Regency (likely involving the Duke of Burgundy, Edward, and Phillip Valois fighting over it), an Englishman, or to disregard female transmission entirely.

It's worth noting that a lot of the kerfuffle around claims were over former comital lands held by the Crown: Champagne and Brie for Joan of Navarre, County Burgundy and Artois for Joan.
 
Last edited:
King John of Gaunt ? No ? Well I guess this « proximity of blood » was not really a thing even for the man who claimed it.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Edit: Ah, I see it's a dig at proximity when it conflicts with primogeniture, John of Gaunt being elder than his nephew the Prince of Wales. In the French Succession proximity here relates to the closest male by blood in absence of the king having a son.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Edit: Ah, I see it's a dig at proximity when it conflicts with primogeniture, John of Gaunt being elder than his nephew the Prince of Wales. In the French Succession proximity here relates to the closest male by blood in absence of the king having a son.

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 ?

The most famous example of a proximity succession in the HYW context was the Artois succession when a daughter trumped a grandson, so, if Edward III really believed in a proximity succession, he should have named John as his successor instead of Richard. He did not, because his shot at the french throne had everything to do with the Aquitanian question and nothing with a so-called rule of succession.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

You seem to consider primogeniture as applying only in a male succession, which might be the case in english law (even if when looking at the medieval successions to peerages, the modern rule of abeyance was seldom applied), but certainly not in any french law. Primogeniture still definitively qualified the rights of daughters and heirs male of daughters. I cannot find any example, neither in law theory nor in practice of primogeniture applying to male-line heirs and proximity to female-line heirs.
 
You seem to consider primogeniture as applying only in a male succession, which might be the case in english law (even if when looking at the medieval successions to peerages, the modern rule of abeyance was seldom applied), but certainly not in any french law. Primogeniture still definitively qualified the rights of daughters and heirs male of daughters. I cannot find any example, neither in law theory nor in practice of primogeniture applying to male-line heirs and proximity to female-line heirs.
Eh? Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? Nothing I've said says that.

In the French Succession only males could inherit the Crown.
Below the Crown throughout France the rights of inherited succession to titles varied depending on local traditions on female rights to hold titles, female representation, female transmission, etc.
Rules such as primogeniture and proximity were created and applied, sometimes in conflict, sometimes in supplement. Wills of the current holder featured prominently. Sometimes arbitration was needed.
The Tradition around the Crown of the France by 1328 was essentially that it was held by males only and was inheritable by eldest sons of the monarch.
That was it. No rules on primogeniture or proximity were explicit. Female transmission or representation had never come up. And coronation had gone from election by nobles to confirmation of selected heir to assumed right of heir.
The death of John Posthumous was the first test case for the Crown as he had no brothers. However he had uncles and a halfsister. His sister failed the established male qualification and so the Crown went to his father's eldest brother. There were issues with some comital inheritance and Navarre which had established female inheritance and transmission but these were negotiated out by Joan's kinsman the Duke of Burgundy.
When Phillip V died without sons precedent was established for his eldest brother to succeed him and his daughters inheritance negotiated.
Then Charles IV died without sons or brothers.
Now a new precedent had to be established and this is where the claimants came in with their own precedents from their own inheritance.

[Minor edits for missing words etc]
 
Last edited:
Top