Male heir for Charles the bold, duke of Burgundy

Charles of Burgundy will mark French history by creating the states of Burgundy. This kingdom will flourish until Francis I's accession to the throne of France. He tried in vain to recover Artois, Picardy and Lorraine. In this TL, there is no Tudor dynasty because the transition between the reign of Edward IV and his son was peaceful. Richard of Gloucester remains faithful to his nephew.
During a period, the states of Burgundy will be annexed by France but the duke of the time will recover his initial borders. Then, the states of Burgundy will know particularly dark years during the reign of Louis XIV. The King of France concentrated on two fronts in Spain, then in Artois and Picardy. The states of Burgundy will survive painfully until the twentieth century when a treaty confirms the states of Burgundy as a sovereign country.
Louis XIV will never be King of France here as his grandfather would never become King after Henry III’s death. If everything in France will go like OTL, unlikely in every aspect (as I think Anne of Brittany will marry Philip of Burgundy and not Charles VIII) maybe possible in the general lines with the extinction of the Valois and Valois-Angouleme branch the next in line will be the Kings of Burgundy and not the Bourbon King of Navarre (plus here likely ATL Henry will be only the Duke of Bourbon and not the King of Navarre)
 
I think the Dauphin was not yet born at that time as he was 13 years junior than her but the King feared a wedding between Mary and the Duke of Orleans, five years younger than her or Nicholas of Lorraine, nine years older than Mary (and to which Louis had offered his eldest daughter Anne) or his own younger brother Charles, Duke of Berry

Actually, the last time Frederick proposed to Mary was 1473 which Mary did not accept.

Mary of Burgundy can marry Matthias Corvin and becomes queen of Hungary. Matthias ruled "a European superpower" at the end of his reign.

Wikipedia's page said:
Stephen Zápolya said the King's death relieved "Hungary of the trouble and oppression from which it had suffered so far". Royal authority quickly diminished because various claimants—John Corvinus, Maximilian of the Romans, Vladislaus Jagiellon, and the latter's younger brother, John Albert—were fighting for the crown.

Mary of Burgundy is a fruitful woman, she can give birth a lot of children. she won't die as a consequence of a fall from a horse.
 
ITTL the duchy of Burgundy might respond differently as well, since ITTL there's no doubt Philip is their duke, which will make it harder than IOTL with Mary.
I'm not sure : Mary was as legitimate it could be, and eventually Louis didn't wait for the local elites to have a say as he immediately invaded the duchy and the county, probably having made preparations "just in case".
Let's remember that barely a week passed between Charles' death and Valois takeover : ITTL, he could likely argue the same than IOTL meaning that he merely protected his niece's holdings that were in his kingdom (and then a bit more). ITTL, it would be at the "benefit" of Philippe whom mother would have certainly kept safe with her..

Arguably, it could be made more smooth by the union of Charles of France and Mary, which becomes relatively more likely ITTL, but not to the point being obvious : if it's done, I could see Louis giving Burgundy to Charles and Mary as a justification.
If not, then like IOTL, a demonstration of force with some legal justification pulled out of his hat would be enough for him while I could see him still searching such an union as he did IOTL after Charles' death : maybe ITTL, it could work if Margaret of York as regent feels that Artois and Boulogne are worth the cost (I don't think that Louis could hold them very well, as I previously said, but he could in a first time occupy these as easily he did historically).

As for the free county (palatine) of Burgundy, well an alliance with the Emperor could protect that. Perhaps TTL Philip of Burgundy will have to wed Kunigunde of Austria (the sister of Maximilian) to ensure this.
I'd rather see an agreement such as Mary being countess of Burgundy in the case of a French union in her name proper (but essentially as a part of Ducal/Countal Burgundy with Charles VIII).
Or if Mary is out of the equation, then maybe Charles being count under technical imperial authority (not unlike what happened to Dauphiné).
 
Charles VIII will not tolerate this union as he did with Maximilian I of Austria.
But against an alliance of the Burgundians and Bretons, who are by any account perfectly in their rights to defend their lands... it may not be so easy to block it. Especially if a Yorkist in England sticks around and repays a favour to his relative.

Not necessarily going to be a victory, and highly dependent on what happens after Charles the bold dies; if Burgundy retains Burgundy-proper and the peripherals like Picardie despite royal attempts to usuarp them, the anti-king alliance with Brittany might be able to create something like the ligue du bien public and win. If there's no French attempts to take anything upon Charles' death it'd probably be tought to create a league, but Burgundy+Brittany might be strong enough to win a defensive victory anyway. If Burgundy loses big in the succession, I suppose a resurrection via Breton power might be blockable for Paris.
 
Mary of Burgundy can marry Matthias Corvin and becomes queen of Hungary. Matthias ruled "a European superpower" at the end of his reign.



Mary of Burgundy is a fruitful woman, she can give birth a lot of children. she won't die as a consequence of a fall from a horse.
Matthias was elected king, he had no hereditary rights to his throne, was conflicted with almost all neighbours, magnates of Hungary despised him due to heavy taxes he imposed to pay Black Army. Mercenary Black Army was good, but too expensive, imposible to maintain in long run. He won't get Mary's hand.
 
Matthias was elected king, he had no hereditary rights to his throne, was conflicted with almost all neighbours, magnates of Hungary despised him due to heavy taxes he imposed to pay Black Army. Mercenary Black Army was good, but too expensive, imposible to maintain in long run. He won't get Mary's hand.

I forgot that detail. Thank you for correcting me.
 
I had thought of Jeanne of France, daughter of Louis XI, as wife of Philippe of Burgundy, two daughters will be born. After Jeanne's death in 1505, he marries Catherine of Aragon as his second wife. At that time, Catherine will be 20 years old and Philippe will be 34 years old. They had several children including three surviving sons.
 
Philippe de Commynes returns to Burgundy to advise Charles using his knowledge of the actions of Louis XI. He advised Charles to reconcile with the House of Croÿ.
 
I'm not sure : Mary was as legitimate it could be, and eventually Louis didn't wait for the local elites to have a say as he immediately invaded the duchy and the county, probably having made preparations "just in case".
Let's remember that barely a week passed between Charles' death and Valois takeover : ITTL, he could likely argue the same than IOTL meaning that he merely protected his niece's holdings that were in his kingdom (and then a bit more). ITTL, it would be at the "benefit" of Philippe whom mother would have certainly kept safe with her..

Arguably, it could be made more smooth by the union of Charles of France and Mary, which becomes relatively more likely ITTL, but not to the point being obvious : if it's done, I could see Louis giving Burgundy to Charles and Mary as a justification.
If not, then like IOTL, a demonstration of force with some legal justification pulled out of his hat would be enough for him while I could see him still searching such an union as he did IOTL after Charles' death : maybe ITTL, it could work if Margaret of York as regent feels that Artois and Boulogne are worth the cost (I don't think that Louis could hold them very well, as I previously said, but he could in a first time occupy these as easily he did historically).

I'd rather see an agreement such as Mary being countess of Burgundy in the case of a French union in her name proper (but essentially as a part of Ducal/Countal Burgundy with Charles VIII).
Or if Mary is out of the equation, then maybe Charles being count under technical imperial authority (not unlike what happened to Dauphiné).
Mary will never ever marry the Dauphin as she is 13 years older than him. The King of France will never risk the future of his line if Mary is not worth the gamble (and if she is not the heiress of Burgundy she is not). Plus OTL the King of France claimed Burgundy as the male line of the kingdom was extinct and he claimed who the whole Burgundy was an appannage given to a prince of France in male line only (both false as much of the lands held by the Dukes was part of the HRE and Burgundy was inhereited in the female line before that).

I had thought of Jeanne of France, daughter of Louis XI, as wife of Philippe of Burgundy, two daughters will be born. After Jeanne's death in 1505, he marries Catherine of Aragon as his second wife. At that time, Catherine will be 20 years old and Philippe will be 34 years old. They had several children including three surviving sons.
Jeanne is too old for him and the King need more the Orleans match, plus she was considered sterile and the King of France will not want risk to gift the Kingdom of Burgundy to the Emperor (and Catherine of Aragon at 20 years old will be already married).
Charles VIII will not tolerate this union as he did with Maximilian I of Austria.
Charles and his sister/regent Anne can hate the match as they want but they will be powerless to stop it (or a match between Anne and Edward V of England but I think the Burugundian match more likely). Unlike Maximilian who is away and had a far powerbase and other troubles and was unable to help Anne, Philippe's land are close to hers and he can go in her support with his army, marry her in person, consummate the wedding and then fight France (who is also his own main enemy) for her lands
 
Mary will never ever marry the Dauphin as she is 13 years older than him.
That's an hindrance, not an impossibility.
Eventually, I think the main obstacle would be Mary's own will and policy, as she was less than favourable to the project IOTL. Maybe ITTL it could be different, and that's this possibility I wanted to stress : note that even in the case of an union, I'm convinced that Mary won't submit to Louis or his son's will and act as a largely independent ruler (and probably leadning her husband to act independently as long his father is alive, as Louis did on his own father).

The King of France will never risk the future of his line if Mary is not worth the gamble (and if she is not the heiress of Burgundy she is not).
He did attempted it IOTL, even as he took over Burgundy, Picardy and Artois. You're right that it wasn't a priority, and that he wouldn't really loose sleep ITTL either if it goes nowhere, but it would be good enough if it works.

Plus OTL the King of France claimed Burgundy as the male line of the kingdom was extinct and he claimed who the whole Burgundy was an appannage given to a prince of France in male line only (both false as much of the lands held by the Dukes was part of the HRE and Burgundy was inhereited in the female line before that).
Again, IOTL he nevertheless proposed the union after Charles' death, essentially in order to enforce his rule over most of the Burgundian inheritency.
As for the "falseness" of the apanage justification, it's more complex : long story short, there wasn't any set rule about what would happen at the end of the line when it held territories outside the kingdom. While the argument that it was limited to the original holding and lands that were gained from it directly, you also had the argumentation that any land gained trough an apanage holding was assimilated to it (this argumentation was based on royal holding whom any expansion or inheritance was to be tied over it). We can say Louis' argumentation was maximalist but not false as such.
Eventually, either minimalist or maximalist approach are both irrelevant in the long run, and it would be settled out of negotiation because neither were rules or legally set (for instance Henri IV pushed back tentatives to merge his first holdings with royal demesne until the late XVIth).
 
That's an hindrance, not an impossibility.


He did attempted it IOTL, even as he took over Burgundy, Picardy and Artois. You're right that it wasn't a priority, and that he wouldn't really loose sleep ITTL either if it goes nowhere, but it would be good enough if it works.


Again, IOTL he nevertheless proposed the union after Charles' death, essentially in order to enforce his rule over most of the Burgundian inheritency.
As for the "falseness" of the apanage justification, it's more complex : long story short, there wasn't any set rule about what would happen at the end of the line when it held territories outside the kingdom. While the argument that it was limited to the original holding and lands that were gained from it directly, you also had the argumentation that any land gained trough an apanage holding was assimilated to it (this argumentation was based on royal holding whom any expansion or inheritance was to be tied over it). We can say Louis' argumentation was maximalist but not false as such.
Eventually, either minimalist or maximalist approach are both irrelevant in the long run, and it would be settled out of negotiation because neither were rules or legally set (for instance Henri IV pushed back tentatives to merge his first holdings with royal demesne until the late XVIth).
Well as I said OTL Mary was the heiress and was worth trying. Here she is not the heiress, the male line of the Dukes of Burgundy was still alive and plus all the lands held by the Duke (or at least the ones outside the HRE aka the French ones) were elevated as Kingdom of Burgundy by the Emperor (and you can be sure who the Kingdom of Burgundy would be inheritable by the descendants of the first king aka Charles I of Burgundy allowing female succession)

I was not saying who Louis XI was totally lying about Burgundy but his claim were quite weak and Burgundy's original status as appanage-only also was disputable
 
Well as I said OTL Mary was the heiress and was worth trying.
She's still an important asset to justify french occupation of Burgundy as her brother should technically inherit the whole of it. Of course, the immediate occupation of Burgundy isn't going to just disappear if Mary doesn't marry Charles, but as how to quickly strengthen his claims on ducal/countal Burgundy and immediate areas, as well as much of Picardy/Artois he could get, an enforced split of the inheritance would be an interesting asset. And what we know of Louis IX is that he rather preferred to legalize his policy as much it could be done.

Here she is not the heiress the male line of the Dukes of Burgundy was still alive
I agree it wouldn't be the best situation possible for Louis' ambitions, but not as drestically so it could be : there's enough case of enforced succession splits or direction that it could be done so, as a mix of right of conquest/right of marriage.

were elevated as Kingdom of Burgundy by the Emperor
It wasn't done IOTL, essentially because Charles' policies were too aggressive for the likes of the emperor.
 
She's still an important asset to justify french occupation of Burgundy as her brother should technically inherit the whole of it. Of course, the immediate occupation of Burgundy isn't going to just disappear if Mary doesn't marry Charles, but as how to quickly strengthen his claims on ducal/countal Burgundy and immediate areas, as well as much of Picardy/Artois he could get, an enforced split of the inheritance would be an interesting asset. And what we know of Louis IX is that he rather preferred to legalize his policy as much it could be done.


I agree it wouldn't be the best situation possible for Louis' ambitions, but not as drestically so it could be : there's enough case of enforced succession splits or direction that it could be done so, as a mix of right of conquest/right of marriage.


It wasn't done IOTL, essentially because Charles' policies were too aggressive for the likes of the emperor.
IOTL failed because neither Charles nor Frederick found a deal good enough for both of them. Here Charles has a son so he know who his dynasty will survive and will be more determined to obtain the title for himself, his son and their descendants. The price to pay for his royal crown? The wedding of his daughter Mary (not his heiress here) to Maximilian of Austria with a dowry so big to make her know as Mary the Rich so Mary will be already married to Maximilian at her father's death and the King of France would be unable to claim any part of her brother's inheritance
 
IOTL failed because neither Charles nor Frederick found a deal good enough for both of them. Here Charles has a son so he know who his dynasty will survive and will be more determined to obtain the title for himself, his son and their descendants. The price to pay for his royal crown? The wedding of his daughter Mary (not his heiress here) to Maximilian of Austria with a dowry so big to make her know as Mary the Rich so Mary will be already married to Maximilian at her father's death and the King of France would be unable to claim any part of her brother's inheritance

That, but more importantly settle for less. Both Philip the Good and Charles the Bold were tempted by the prospect given by them by the Emperor's Chancellery of the prospect of a Royal Crown. Both saw that as an independent Royal Crown, though the latter would have settled for King of the Romans too; no Emperor would or could ever agree to that regarding Imperial Fiefs. What was on the table was the prospect to unite all or most of the Burgundian Imperial Fiefs, maybe including Ecclesiastic territories in their sphere of influence, such as Liege (Luik/Lüttich) and Utrecht, into a one kingdom, which would still be an Imperial Fief, like Bohemia. Thus having to give up the pseudo independence Burgundy fancied itself in between France and the Empire

However giving away a Crown IOTL was more attractive for Frederick III, since IOTL he knew that would end up in Habsburg hands anyway. Though even ITTL female inheritance will be allowed for any such Imperial Kingdom, if only to prevent an otherwise legitimate French takeover.
 
Perhaps Mary of Burgundy would marry Charles, duke of Berry instead in this scenario, Nicholas of Anjou can have La Beltraneja instead or vice versa but I think Mary of Burgundy if married to either Nicholas or Max in this scenario might butterfly the death of the Duke of Berry and have the marriage of La Beltraneja and Berry consummated or if Berry still dies ITTL Nicholas might use La Beltraneja to claim Naples and marry her and Maximilian marries Mary of Burgundy.
 
Last edited:
What about having Charles the Bold marry some one else like Catherine of Portugal, his second wife and Catherine died almost at the same time..
 
Charles of Burgundy and Margaret of York have been childless. As a result, Mary becames Duchess of Burgundy, at the death of her father, during the Battle of Nancy, on 5 January 1477.

* * *​

4th January 1471, Bruges.

Charles the Bold agreed to help King Edward IV to regain his throne. Then he shares Margaret's bed who becomes pregnant. On October 9, 1471, Margaret of York childbears a son, named Phillip of Burgundy, in honour of his paternal grandfather.

What could be the consequences of this boy's birth? Will Charles be more careful in his political choices? Will the birth of his Burgundian state be encouraged?
A big but possibly underlooked consequence of this is that, if things play out in a certain way, either he or his male-line descendants could become King(s) of France. I wonder what France would look like with Burgundian Kings.
 
Top