Kingdom of Franks to Kingdom of France

Hello!

I have always wondered why Philippe Augustus of France changed the name of his kingdom from Kingdom of Franks (Rex Francorum) to Kingdom of France (Rex Francia).
What were his reasons and what he gained from doing that ?

In my opinion, he even lost, as being king of the franks could be see as more prestigious, having more claims on the territories once conquered by the franks. France was mostly the principality around Paris, more or less identified with the Royal Demesne.
Now, to identify the France with the entire kingdom could increase his authority over his nobles but it could be done without to do this.
In my opinion the lords of the kingdom could even more being discontent into being assimilated to France.

I know that the the change was done gradually but I never understood why.

What are your opinions?


Big Thanks !


PS: Sorry for my English...
 
It's not only France though. In the same period the style from the English monarch also changed from king of the English, to king of England.
 
It's not only France though. In the same period the style from the English monarch also changed from king of the English, to king of England.

Hi Janprimus!

Thanks for your answer.
Still, I must disagree with you. As far I know, England was never "Kingdom of English" but "Kingdom of England" (Rex Angliae).
Instead, there was the "King of Romans" (Rex Romanorum), a title that exist in HRE but never change.
In the Spanish peninsula, there were from the beginning the Kingdoms of Aragon, Castile, Navarre, Portugal, Galicia and Leon.
I am not sure about, but I believe that was the same for the other catholic Kingdoms, as : Sicily, Poland, Hungary, Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

So, as far I know, the french case is the only one. Maybe only the Scotland case is different but I'm not sure (I do not know if the original name was Kingdom of Scotland or Kingdom of the Scots).

Thanks
 
As far I know, England was never "Kingdom of English" but "Kingdom of England" (Rex Angliae).
Instead, there was the "King of Romans" (Rex Romanorum), a title that exist in HRE but never change.

Actually, until 1200 or so, the style of the English sovereign was 'Rex Anglorum' - King of the English in the vulgar vernacular. The changeover is, of course, coterminous with that in France, and represents a shift from 'popular sovereignty' to the idea of a modern nation-state (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_century_renaissance for details) and the reason Germany didn't change was quite simply because it barely functioned as a nation, and even then it bore the name of an Italian city!

Popular Sovereignty was founded on the Germanic idea of Kingship (obviously prevalent in post-Völkerwanderung Western Europe) which depicted a leader of warriors and their families and dependents rather than the supreme ruler of a defined area of land: in the Early Middle Ages, being a Frank was far more meaningful than being Born in France, frontier cartography being what it was. So the warriors of these Germanic tribes would elect or acclaim a King of the Franks, or of the English, the Scots, the Vandals, the Visigoths, the Andals and the First Men, etc.

The growth of a civic bourgeoisie and, more importantly, a bureaucratic character in the government, led to greater emphasis on land ownership and wealth as a basis for authority - it was useful to define the limits of your land, be you a peasant or a Count, in order to prevent your neighbours from stealing your cattle and murdering you in your bed - or worse, some Justice of the Peace coming round to extort money from you, armed with nothing but a copy of the Domesday Book. In short, the trend towards being the King of a piece of land (France) became noticeable here, and eventually ended up as "L'etat, c'est moi".
 
The Norman kings, used the same style as their predecessors, king of the English, this style was only changed during the reign of the Plantagenets to king of England.

The title of the heir (and/or intially also emperor-elect) of the Holy Roman Empire, did indeed remain king of the Romans.

The Iberian peninsula was a bit more complex. Some of these kingdoms developed, when a previous king split his inheritance, for instance the count of Castille, later became king of Leon, when he died one son succeeded him as king of Leon, another as king of Castille and another as king of Galicia.
The county of Portugal gained independence from Leon and managed to become a kingdom of its' own.
In Scotland the style king of Scots remained preferred over king of Scotland (rare not non-existent).

Using both these styles wasn't uncommon, especially earlier in the medieval period, but eventually in most cases the territorial styling became favoured.
 
As other posters says, it's the passage from a popular kingship (understand there a kingship that was issued from military command and popular, as in armed freemen, approbation) to a fully feudal kingship, in a system where territorial power was in precedence over power above a people.

France, at this point, still designated only part of Northern France, more or less Ile-De-France and it would be the case up to the end of Middle Ages : when Louis IX conquered parts of Aquitaine and Languedoc, he was said that he should rather be named king of Gaul instead of France.
It should be noted that he first used this new title, not in the wake of his conquests over Plantagenets, but before. That these conquests maintained the usage is possible, but its appearance not only precedes the conception of the kingdom as France, but its historical premises.

As said by other posters, such territorialisation of titles was used elsewhere. But there's a difference : where many rulers tended to collect titles (as Henry II being styled as Rex Angliae, Dux Normanniae et Aquitainiae et Comes Andegaviae), French kings in the same period tended to use a much more reduced title (Rex Franciae).

I will disagree with Uhura's Mazda : the use of "France", far from being the sign of a bureaucratisation and rise or urban elites (that were far more prone to indentify themselves as citizens, literraly members of a given urban communauty), is the sign of both the climax of feudality and the affirmation of an unified royal power over the territories he ruled.

Indeed, his conquests (and his successors') were directly tied to royal demesne and managed the same way it was. Depsite not being part of "France" geographically speaking, they were de facto an extended France as using really similar institutions (depsite, of course, provincial particularities that would last up to the XVI, XVII centuries, if not up to French Revolution).

Finally a last explanation, but not least, would be the influence of Plantagenet styling that used territorial titles (especially for their continental estates) before French kings. Here, we're in a context of feudal rivalty where the main rival wasn't the emperor but a less prestigious but more threatening poly-duke.
 
Thanks Guys!

I appreciate your suggestion and explanations.

I have considered that would be cooler for a french king to centralize his kingdom without being more or less forced to incorporate everything in his demesne. I think that was needed once they start to being defined as Kings of France instead Kings of the Franks.

Can they centralize the kingdom without being forced to increase the size of Royal Demesne to the size of the kingdom? Can be done that by force the nobility into submission in the same way as the English kings have done it ? (or other kings in the Catholic Europe).

I imagine something like a french king in the 14 or 15 or 16 century to impose to all his dukes and counts to bound and renounce to the regalian prerogatives (rising armies, having independent diplomacy, currency, etc.). They will continue to govern the provinces and having something like "house of the lords/seigneurs" to play some politics. The biggest treat could be, of course, the factionalism and civil-wars but also to impeach the domains to be inherited outside the kingdom by a foreign power (like Plantagenet or Burgundian case)... but that is the job that the king should do.

I imagine that this could means a very different kind of kingship, but I believe that it's pretty much how the majority of the other kingdoms have evolved.

Thanks.
 
I have considered that would be cooler for a french king to centralize his kingdom without being more or less forced to incorporate everything in his demesne. I think that was needed once they start to being defined as Kings of France instead Kings of the Franks.
Feudality and centralization are excluding each other. The very definition of the former implies the gift of a land in all property to someone else.
As said, the passage to Franks->France is not a cause, but a consequence of feudalization. At least, not a redefinition of royal power.

And no, they couldn't have done that : giving the level of feudal fragmentation in France, critically when many holdings of the kingdoms are under the direct suzerainty of a rival dynasty...
At best, you could have small feudal remnants being turned into de facto royal provinces (as Lorraine in the XVIIIth, even if the duchy was long bureaucratized), but affirmation of full royal authority and maintain of several autonomous authorities all over the kingdom are contradictory.

Can they centralize the kingdom without being forced to increase the size of Royal Demesne to the size of the kingdom?
Again no. Centralization implies the control of a given territory. For that you need given territory being unified; and having crushed reaction against this unification.

Can be done that by force the nobility into submission in the same way as the English kings have done it ? (or other kings in the Catholic Europe).
Each country had its own way to centralize, giving is own conditions.
For instance, England after the Norman conquest, had a really reduced nobiliar elite (as well a reduced population) that set up a quite idealized version of Franco-Norman feudality.

It both helped English kings to keep a stronger authority over the realm, and nobles to search more a regional influence, without the extreme fragmentation that existed in southern France or North Italy, by exemple.

At the exception of peripherical demesnes and ecclesiastical holdings, English kings of the XIIth had on their kingdom a similar authority that Capetian had on France since the XIIIth. That's not only an historical tendency, given that they took after Plantagenet decisions to organize their own authority (without being forced to comply to their nobility requests, something that quite helped).

As in France, the territorial and property feudal fragmentation was the context on which the kingdom was set up, you couldn't have an equivalent progression. (Well, except if you butterfly away feudality, but either it's a really earlier PoD that would likely butterfly France, or it would make as much sense than a XVIIIth PoD that would butterfly away liberalism).

Furthermore, for what concern bureaucratisation, it doesn't implies religious difference : Scandinavian countries did it eventually, as all German or Italian states (without Germany or Italy being unified), etc.

I imagine something like a french king in the 14 or 15 or 16 century to impose to all his dukes and counts to bound and renounce to the regalian prerogatives (rising armies, having independent diplomacy, currency, etc.).
It would be an out-of-nowhere negation of feudal principles, the very same principles that supported royal power. (And XIV, XVth century? In the middle of HYW?)
Even admitting they would comply (spoiler : thet would never ever do that), it would mean kings getting rid of easily half of their armies (even the 1445 Ordinances didn't removed feudal armies, but reorganized them), only when it comes to military part.

They didn't needed to ask or to order that : the simple fact Capetians and Valois directly controlled easily half of their kingdom directly, managed to impose their authority elsewhere relativly easily, managed to impose their own currency in the whole kingdom already; is far than enough to strengthen their hegemony.

Either the remnants of feudal entities comply de facto and are slowly absorbated trough matrimonial alliances as Navarre-Foix-Albret, or Brittany) or trough apannages; either they don't and they're crushed as much it was possible (Bourbon, Bourgogne, Armagnacs)

I imagine that this could means a very different kind of kingship, but I believe that it's pretty much how the majority of the other kingdoms have evolved.
It's not.
Again, France was quite similar to Germany and Italy given they were really divided up into several entities, themselves often divided.
On the other hand, realms as England (for aformentioned reasons), Spain (mostly because feudality was more important than native, and that Reconquista allowed a different kind of repartition and royal power), Scandinavia (because it was a relativly superficial feudal veil, at least at first, under more unified entities), etc. had different contexts.
 
Hi!

Thanks LSCatilina for your very detailed responses.

My error was to confuse centralization with unification. So, my real question was :
Can the King of France unify his kingdom without hugely expand the Royal Demesne ?

I understand very well that the feudal = giving away the land and all the power associated.

But could this definition be alternated in an ATL? For example under the influence of the Roman Law?

Henry II Plantagenet has imposed in the Kingdom of England that all free men are directly loyal to the king, no mater who is his suzerain (ok, this was theory and in practice was quite different). I know the English case is different (the Norman Conquest). I know that this is pretty much to much for the french feudalistic minds in that period... But, I believe that it could be done (for example by Philippe II or Louis IX).

Ok, to reformulate, I would like to see a medieval France divided in fiefdoms (duchy and counties) governed by dukes and counts with very large autonomy but being forced to not have big private armies (small ones are acceptable), no external diplomacy, and no inheritance outside the kingdom (the king to have the power and legitimacy to oppose that). Of course, in time of war, those nobles will rise up the armies on they domains but in the name of the king and loyal to the king.

What I had detested in the french history is to seeing the dukes and counts playing they politics like they were truly independents. Territories conquered by the kings and give away to they children (the apanages) and those one feeling very litle loyalty to the crown (barely to the king that happens to be they father or brother).

I'm a little frustrated about that it seems that the way how France become France is peaty much deterministic. It should happens in the OTL way or it will disintegrates itself, or conquered, or splited, or something like that. What I search is for a different patent but not one so radical that France will not be France...

Anyway, thanks for your help and patience.
 
Last edited:
My error was to confuse centralization with unification. So, my real question was :
Can the King of France unify his kingdom without hugely expand the Royal Demesne ?
Not without having a clearly dominant position. Early Capetians kings, while having a direct power on Ile-De-France (that was quite a wealthy region) and beneficing from an important institutional power, needed to rival with their most powerful neighbours to be able to deal with them.

Expansion of royal demesne wasn't a matter of choice when it come to unification of the realm : a feeble prince couldn't have done that.
And once you put yourself stuck in the process, it's hard to get rid of it because it would mean concede parts of your hegemony.
Conquest, inheritence or confisque (confiscation of a fiefdom when the vassal was considered no longer fulfilling his obligations) followed pretty much quickly as more the kings authority grew, more resistance you had against this process.

Apanages, first concieved as giving part of the demesne to sons that didn't inherited the crown, were used in order to create "feudal protectorates" (in lack of a better word). They could be quite important and cover 1/3 of the realm, and eventually managed to "prepare" the reunion to royal demesne by applying similar inner policies than royal ones (not that they were forced to, but simply because they were the ones they were used to) : administrative, economics, military, etc.

Not counting they could be gained more easily trough inheritence (not only because of familial ties, but because an Apanage was supposed, when the main line died out, come back to royal demesne even if there were more direct heirs).

At some point, after the HYW, while great feudal demesnes still existed in France, you had a too important royal demesne to be ignored. At this point, either feudal lords complied (as the County/Duchy of Nevers that was never part of the royal demesne up to 1789, but trough several edicts was treated as an apanage, then as a protectorate de jure), or if they didn't (or if they were suspected to pose a threat) they were removed.

You can't really have both a Capetian/Valois king unifying the realm (implying a strong royal demesne would it be only to have the ressources to impose his full authority) and surviving (at a worth of mention scale) classical feudality.

But could this definition be alternated in an ATL? For example under the influence of the Roman Law?
At the moment Roman Law (as in Justinian corpus, as Roman customs were maintained) was reintroduced in the XIIth century, feudality as an institution was very well established.
Furthermore, feudality definition is an historiographical one : critically in an oral society based at least as much on custom than law, making feudality a really proteiform concept when it comes to definition.

Because of that, the definition is forced to be vague and reduced to the lowest common denominator, and hard to be changed even if atypic forms of feudalism appears (as Occitan, Catalan or Hispanic feudalism; based more on written agreements, less on customs, with a more important presence of late Roman law, etc.)

But, I believe that it could be done (for example by Philippe II or Louis IX).
You make a mistake by separating Plantagenet situation from "feudalistic minds". What Henri II based his power on was feudalism, in a specific variant, that didn't went against this system was.

You really, REALLY, need to understand that institutional and political differences there didn't came out of nowhere because "they changed their minds" but because of the different conditions.
Again, compared to practically every continental realm (except maybe Scandinavia), England was underpopulated, and also had a really reduced nobility (essentially because Normans get almost entierly rid of Saxon elites).
Philipp II ruled over a quite different kingdom : more populated, with a more important nobility and where free-men didn't made less than 1/3 of the kingdom (that I remind you, was at best inhabited by 1,5 millions of people) and where nobility didn't had three centuries to fully establish themselves as independent powers.

And for Louis IX. Why should he bother to compromise with great nobles when he could say "Do as I told, or else".
Else being pushed into the great nothingness with the help of a modern army, huges ressources from an already huge demesne, and from the benevolent help from possible heirs.
You could ask Armagnacs about that, if Jean V didn't died from a sudden and unexpected double attack of poignarditose and of Syndrome of-Axe-In-The-Head (named after the doctor Axe-In-The-Head) in the middle of a siege; or if his wife wasn't forced to abort.

What I had detested in the french history is to seeing the dukes and counts playing they politics like they were truly independents. Territories conquered by the kings and give away to they children (the apanages) and those one feeling very litle loyalty to the crown (barely to the king that happens to be they father or brother).

1) And why exactly should they not do that, regarding a territory that was legally and mentally their own property?
2) I can give several exemples of the contrary : Alphonse de Poitiers, Second Angevine House, most of Bourbon House up to the XVIth century, Philippe d'Orléans, etc.
Not considering the fact some royal heirs were trusted with their own apanages, you really underestimate the ideological and political strength of dynastic ties in a political organisation that is basically based on these.

I'm a little frustrated about that it seems that the way how France become France is peaty much deterministic. It should happens in the OTL way or it will disintegrates itself, or conquered, or splited, or something like that. What I search is for a different patent but not one so radical that France will not be France...
Well, that's pretty much that : France, historically, had very strong tendencies to division. Because of its huge population (remember that it had the most important population in Europe up to the XIXth century) that implied a more fragmented administrative and political managment (You don't rule over 8 to 20 millions of people as you rule over 1 to 3); political geography (Gallo-Roman pagi's boundaries being more or less the direct ancestor of feudal entities, a pagus more or less including a same folk within his borders); linguistic differences; etc.

After some reflexion, you'll agree that either the whole thing go even more divided, or that the necessity of unifying all of this entierly should strikes someone. Especially if "someone" have already an institutional suzerainty over all the place and a good pretext to evict rivals.

Giving the initial historical conditions of how France appeared, that pretty much limit the choices.
 
Hi!

Thank you very much for your clarifications.

Can I add another question ?

How fast could be those territories merged into the Royal Demesne ?

For example, nearly all the conquest of Philippe II (and there were a lot of them) were gived away by his son and grandson as appanages.

I'm thinking to a scenario were Philippe is even more successful and chase the Plantagenets from France + they are so crippled than they can not do in the next 2-3 generations any big campaigns on the Continent.
In this scenario, Philippe confiscate all Aquitaine and install himself as Duke of Aquitaine. Also, his son have the great idea to not divide it so it pass to Louis IX who also not divide it (ok, it maybe not be the Saint or so just but more... like his grandfather). Can those regions being kept by Louis IX, first as separate realms and later incorporated into the RD (for ex, by Philippe IV) ?

I know that those scenarios may imply a lot of butterflies (especially if we think of Charles d'Anjou) and maybe several brothers of Louis IX having a different life.

I think that is not needed to integrate every county in RD, only the ducal lands and some lands of some nobles that rebelled or dies without issues?

How plausible is this scenario and will it be accepted by the nobility?
Will the Aquitaine's nobles and the gascon ones be "convinced" little by little to accept that they duke is the king and later (maybe 2-3 generations later) that they are part of France?


Now, to think at all the butterflies, is simply impossible but I think that they will be huge.

Thanks a lot !
 
How fast could be those territories merged into the Royal Demesne ?

For example, nearly all the conquest of Philippe II (and there were a lot of them) were gived away by his son and grandson as appanages.
First, an apanage isn't always out of royal demesne : if the county given as such is under the direct suzerainty of the king without landed vavassors by exemple.

And when part of these conquests, and far from nearly all : Vermandois, Normandy, Touraine, remained in the royal demesne, were trusted to royal cadets, you had other conquests. Long story short : Capetians were on a lucky winning streak and they couldn't absord everything they taken over (even if they would have wanted so : it was quite contrary to contemporary mentalities).
For instance, Aquitaine (safe S-W), Languedoc (absorbated in two times).

Now if we're taking OTL as base situation : some territories could be absorbated very quickly (in one generation, the line failing to make an heir), less quickly (three to four generations) and harshly (Burgundy, by exemple)

I'm thinking to a scenario were Philippe is even more successful and chase the Plantagenets from France + they are so crippled than they can not do in the next 2-3 generations any big campaigns on the Continent.
I don't really see that happening, safe an invasion of England as it happened IOTL (and for quite different reasons). Plantagenets, while defeated still kept relativly intact their ressources in England and were still able to harass continental possession. After years of war, everyone including Capetians, needed a rest.

Can those regions being kept by Louis IX, first as separate realms and later incorporated into the RD (for ex, by Philippe IV) ?
No. For aformentioned reasons, it's unlikely to have no redistribution at all. Not only it would piss off the royal cadets (and pissing them off is a great way to have troubles at home), but it would have been contrary to current mentalities : you had to give something to your children in order to make them able to have bread (the ethymology of appanage)

I know that those scenarios may imply a lot of butterflies (especially if we think of Charles d'Anjou) and maybe several brothers of Louis IX having a different life.
With an early XIIIth PoD, you can be sure that Louis IX is butterflied away as a good part of late Middle Ages.

I think that is not needed to integrate every county in RD, only the ducal lands and some lands of some nobles that rebelled or dies without issues?
Giving that RD was expanded trough inheritence and crushing rebellion IOTL already, and that still ended with only technically non-RD demesnes up to 1789 that were treated as apanages and provinces de facto; I fail to see the difference.

How plausible is this scenario and will it be accepted by the nobility?
It's not.

Will the Aquitaine's nobles and the gascon ones be "convinced" little by little to accept that they duke is the king and later (maybe 2-3 generations later) that they are part of France?
You shouldn't think in terms of nationality there, but on feudal right. Even when Plantagenets were dukes, the king was still a Capetians, the last recourse when they had troubles with the ducal authority.
The transmission there wouldn't be too much hard, giving the context.
 
Why did the French Kings not claim to be King of Gaul, in the manner of the Visigoths and Ostrogoths in Spain and Italy?
 
Why did the French Kings not claim to be King of Gaul, in the manner of the Visigoths and Ostrogoths in Spain and Italy?

As far as I know, neither of these kingdoms were called "Kingdom of Spain" or "Italy", unless we count foreign accounts.

Visigothic kingdom was either called "Regnum Toletanum" or "Kingdom of the Goths", "Visigothic Kingdom" appearing sometimes.

For Ostrogoths, it's roughly the same. You can find "King reigning in Rome", "Kingdom of Goths" "reigning over Italians"

Late Antiquity/Early medieval kingship was almost always associated with a people, not a territory. And when it wasn't the case, it was more often named after the place from where he ruled (as Frankish kingdoms of Orléans, Rheims, Soissons etc.)

Now, during Louis IX (Saint Louis) reign, a chronicler actually said that as the king conquered lands and imposed his authority beyond France itself (France, in medieval meaning, being roughly Ile de France) up to mediterranean coast, he should be called "King of Gaul".
 
Thanks Guys,

Your feedback help me a lot. I'm wondered why the Capetians kings have drooped the custom to have one of they brothers become bishops ?

As far I know, the last one was intended to become was Louis VII, but the faith decided otherwise.

After that, Louis IX has no brothers or children with this spiritual call... :rolleyes:, and no other flowing kings (i maybe be wrong).

His father have only one brother, so not wise, and his grandfather was single child but after that, there were plenty of them that could choose this path (more or less "encouraged" by they king brother).
 
Last edited:
I'm wondered why the Capetians kings have drooped the custom to have one of they brothers become bishops ?
Except Louis VI's sons (it's more about sons going to an ecclesiestical careeer than kings making their brother so), I don't remember any capetians being bishop.

One and half occurence (as Philippe refused to be made bishop of Paris) isn't nearly enough to make a custom.
 
True, my fault.

I had the impression that, when a king has many sons (aka Louis VI), on of them will choose the ecclesiastical path (a good way to have a strong ally in the Church and a brother less to challenge your authority).

I'm planning a brilliant ecclesiastical carrier for Charles Etienne Capet :D:D:D.
How do you thing about Monseigneur Charles, Archevêque de Reims :rolleyes:?
 
I had the impression that, when a king has many sons (aka Louis VI), on of them will choose the ecclesiastical path (a good way to have a strong ally in the Church and a brother less to challenge your authority).
Not really. Many bishops were issued from either urban or secondary nobles families, being seen then as a way to augment influence or support in the region.

For royal or great noble families, on the other hand, it was more customary to have them trusted with titles and lands than sending them to church. (It would have too obviously been to get rid of them, and that wouldn't have pleased anyone,and certainly not a church that reached its height concerning political independence).
It's not unheard of (for legitimate or illegitimate sons), but not really common.

I'm planning a brilliant ecclesiastical carrier for Charles Etienne Capet
How do you thing about Monseigneur Charles, Archevêque de Reims?
Unlikely.
First, it was a good way for Louis IX to have a good influence on southern and Mediterranean regions, when he tried to increase his power there either directly or by placing trusted men (and usually, kinship was considered as such)
Then, it was more customary of the time to have secular lords following pious way of life (as chastity) than entering in orders (as Louis IX did himself).

Forcing Charles into priesthood, would have been a bit OOC for Louis, I think; and wouldn't have fit too much in a context.
 
Unlikely.
First, it was a good way for Louis IX to have a good influence on southern and Mediterranean regions, when he tried to increase his power there either directly or by placing trusted men (and usually, kinship was considered as such)
Then, it was more customary of the time to have secular lords following pious way of life (as chastity) than entering in orders (as Louis IX did himself).

Forcing Charles into priesthood, would have been a bit OOC for Louis, I think; and wouldn't have fit too much in a context.

Dam! It's seems that pretty every idea I have to play with the history is not plausible...
For Charles, I've think more to an "internal call" (something like a dream when he was young were he believe that God call him to priesthood) or something like that. Louis IX, as a pious man, will not oppose to his brother to become priest if hi has the call.

Also, in OTL Charles has married Beatrice, the little sister of his brother wife. Beatrice will inherit the county of Provence (normally, the county was intended to be inherited by Margaret, the queen of France, as being the oldest of the 4 sisters). If Beatrice will marry some one else (as Charles will become priest), Louis could push his right (ok, the right of his wife) and gain the county.
 
For Charles, I've think more to an "internal call" (something like a dream when he was young were he believe that God call him to priesthood) or something like that. Louis IX, as a pious man, will not oppose to his brother to become priest if hi has the call.
A bit far-fetched, I would say. You'd need more than a vague dream to radically change the character of a person.
At best, I think it could make Charles, as Louis or Alphonse, a really pious guy.
 
Top