Philip V of France lives a bit longer

Inspired by this discussion, I started wondering: what if Philip V of France lived slightly longer.


In OTL, he started suffered from dysentery and malaria in the late summer of 1321 and died in the night of January 2nd to 3rd, 1322. Because he didn’t have any male descendants, his throne was inherited by his cousin Charles IV and after the latter’s death in 1328 it went to his cousin Philip VI. But starting from 1337 the throne was also claimed by Edward III of England, the son of Philip V’s and Charles IV’s sister, on the grounds of him being Philip V’s and Charles IV’s closest male heir. Along comes the Hundred Year’s War.

On November 10th, 1323 Philip V’s eldest daughter Joan gave birth to her first and only son Philip (“Philippe Monsieur”), by her husband Odo IV of Burgundy.


What if Philip V recovered, only do die, say, in 1324 or 1325? Does the throne go to Philip’s V brother Charles, thereby “inventing” or confirming Salic law, or does it go to his grandson Philippe Monsieur? Both cases would undermine the legal basis of Edward ‘s claim, and would probably change France’s internal dynamic as well as it’s relationship with the English throne.
 
Charles IV was Philip V's brother, the third son of Philip IV.

If Philip's grandson through his daughter Joan is able to gain the throne, I feel like Joan, the daughter of Louis X who eventually became Queen of Navarre, would have a lot to say about that, as she has just been bypassed despite having a more senior claim to the throne in her own right. For that matter, Edward III would have even more of a bone to pick, since he is a more senior claimant himself.
 
Inspired by this discussion, I started wondering: what if Philip V of France lived slightly longer.


In OTL, he started suffered from dysentery and malaria in the late summer of 1321 and died in the night of January 2nd to 3rd, 1322. Because he didn’t have any male descendants, his throne was inherited by his cousin Charles IV and after the latter’s death in 1328 it went to his cousin Philip VI. But starting from 1337 the throne was also claimed by Edward III of England, the son of Philip V’s and Charles IV’s sister, on the grounds of him being Philip V’s and Charles IV’s closest male heir. Along comes the Hundred Year’s War.

On November 10th, 1323 Philip V’s eldest daughter Joan gave birth to her first and only son Philip (“Philippe Monsieur”), by her husband Odo IV of Burgundy.


What if Philip V recovered, only do die, say, in 1324 or 1325? Does the throne go to Philip’s V brother Charles, thereby “inventing” or confirming Salic law, or does it go to his grandson Philippe Monsieur? Both cases would undermine the legal basis of Edward ‘s claim, and would probably change France’s internal dynamic as well as it’s relationship with the English throne.

Philippe Monsieur being born before or after Philip V’s death do not change anything because he and his mother would be still skipped in favor of Charles IV (who is still a male heir in male line so with an higher claim than a male heir in female line like the Joan’s son).
Edward III as son of a sister of Charles IV would still be his closest male heir in female line as his rivals would be only sons of a niece and OTL Philip VI still the male heir in male line and Joan of Navarre the female heiress...

Under Edward III’s well thinked claim the line of succession to Charles IV was this one:
1) Edward III of England (son of Charles’ sister Isabella) and heirs
2) sons of Joan of France (niece of Charles IV as daughter of his eldest brother Louis)
3) sons of Joan of Burgundy (niece of Charles IV as daughter of elder brother Philip)
4) sons of Joan’s younger sisters in birth order.


For invalidating Edward’s claim on France you need either:
a) Charles having a grandson by his own daughter at the time of his death
b) Charles’ dying BEFORE Philip AND Philippe Monsieur being born before the death of his grandfather


Edward’s scheme work like that:

First ancestor (male)
A) First son of First Ancestor
1A) First son of A
11A) Son of 1A
12A) Daughter of 1A
121A) Son of 12A
2A) Second son of A
21A) First daughter of 2A
211A) Son of 21A
22A) Second daughter of A
221A) Daughter of 22A
23A) Third daughter of A
3A) Third son of A
31A) Daughter of 3A
4A) Fourth son of A
5A) First daughter of A
51A) Son of 5A
511A) Son of 51A
52A) Daughter of 5A
521A) Son of 52A
6A) Second daughter of A
61A) Son of 6A
B)Second son of First Ancestor
1B) First son of B
11B) Son of 1B
2B) Second son of B

Line of succession to First Ancestor under Salic Law work like that
A, 1A, 11A, 2A, 3A, 4A, B, 1B, 11B, 2B....
Line of succession under Edward’s very plausible claim would work like that:
A, 1A, 11A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 51A, 511A, 521A, 61A, 121A, 211A, 221A, B, 1B, 11B, 2B
 
Keep in mind that Philip VI was ultimately elected as the next king, all while Joan and Edward, even Joan's husband Philip of Evreaux, had their own claims in consideration. Philip was always going to be the choice, to be frank. He was the oldest and most mature of all the claimants, was a direct male line descendant of a past king from his first marriage (whereas Philip of Evreaux descended from Philip III's 2nd marriage). Additionally, the would be Philip VI had a healthy, if young, heir in John (eventually John II), so he also brought dynastic stability to the table. Meanwhile Joan and Philip of Evreaux were each much younger, had no children, and Philip of Valois had a more senior claim than Philip of Evreaux anyway, who would have been behind Charles of Alençon anyway.
 
Keep in mind that Philip VI was ultimately elected as the next king, all while Joan and Edward, even Joan's husband Philip of Evreaux, had their own claims in consideration. Philip was always going to be the choice, to be frank. He was the oldest and most mature of all the claimants, was a direct male line descendant of a past king from his first marriage (whereas Philip of Evreaux descended from Philip III's 2nd marriage). Additionally, the would be Philip VI had a healthy, if young, heir in John (eventually John II), so he also brought dynastic stability to the table. Meanwhile Joan and Philip of Evreaux were each much younger, had no children, and Philip of Valois had a more senior claim than Philip of Evreaux anyway, who would have been behind Charles of Alençon anyway.
I think who Philip VI was elected King because the only credible alternative would be the foreign King Edward III of England. If Isabella of France had married a French noble (or nearby ruler) instead of the English enemy her son would have very good chance to be chosen as King instead of Philip VI (Evreaux and Alencon had too junior claims and Joan of Navarre was a woman)
 
I think who Philip VI was elected King because the only credible alternative would be the foreign King Edward III of England. If Isabella of France had married a French noble (or nearby ruler) instead of the English enemy her son would have very good chance to be chosen as King instead of Philip VI (Evreaux and Alencon had too junior claims and Joan of Navarre was a woman)
Very true, and Edward was aware of how strong his own claim was, as he was the only male directly descended from Philip IV and the closest male relation to his deceased uncles, just through a female line. Female line succession hadn't been a thing in France for some time for no other reason than it just wasn't an issue. Since Hugh Capet, the French throne passed from father to son right on down to Philip IV. It was just one of those things they hadn't had to worry about. Bypassing Edward was motivated primarily by politics as opposed to any ancient rules of succession.

I do have a bit of a question here, though. Isabella herself would have been a strong candidate in her own right, especially if Joan was claiming the throne. In fact, she would have the strongest claim. Was she bypassed because she was running around with her lover Mortimer in England?
 
I do have a bit of a question here, though. Isabella herself would have been a strong candidate in her own right, especially if Joan was claiming the throne. In fact, she would have the strongest claim. Was she bypassed because she was running around with her lover Mortimer in England?
Bypassed because she was female and there was no history of regnant queens in the successors to the Frankish kingdom.
 
Well no, she was sole remaining offspring of the King. Almost a Matilda moment.
She was not. But she was genealogically the most senior member remaining of the main branch of the Royal House if female succession was allowed. The King her father had died many years before and was succeeded on the throne by his two younger brothers who had left six daughters between them (all of them of indisputable legitimacy unlike Joan herself)

True, but that didn't prevent Joan from claiming the throne herself.
Well, Joan had a very good claim being genealogically the senior female heiress of the family. Isabella would have a very weak claim of her own to the Crown as genealogically she was behind all her seven nieces (who came before her being daughters of her brothers so from more senior male lines than hers). Going with blood proximity to Charles IV Isabella was third behind her brother’s infant daughters Marie and Blanche (born by his third wedding to Jeanne d’Evreux, sister of Joan of Navarre’s husband Philip).

Plus France would not have liked female succession while Edward had a very strong claim of his own
 
She was not. But she was genealogically the most senior member remaining of the main branch of the Royal House if female succession was allowed. The King her father had died many years before and was succeeded on the throne by his two younger brothers who had left six daughters between them (all of them of indisputable legitimacy unlike Joan herself)
She had no surviving brothers or sisters therefore I spoke truly by saying she was the only offspring albeit I forgot her brother was briefly king after her father.

Well, Joan had a very good claim being genealogically the senior female heiress of the family. Isabella would have a very weak claim of her own to the Crown as genealogically she was behind all her seven nieces (who came before her being daughters of her brothers so from more senior male lines than hers). Going with blood proximity to Charles IV Isabella was third behind her brother’s infant daughters Marie and Blanche (born by his third wedding to Jeanne d’Evreux, sister of Joan of Navarre’s husband Philip).

Plus France would not have liked female succession while Edward had a very strong claim of his own
Indeed.
 
She had no surviving brothers or sisters therefore I spoke truly by saying she was the only offspring albeit I forgot her brother was briefly king after her father.
Yes. But she was easily surpassed after the deaths of her father and half-brother. Her biggest claim on the crown was made after Charles IV’s death when she was only niece of the late King (and daughter of a previous one).

OTL you had this claimants:
-Philip VI, male heir from a male line (heir excluding female and female lines)
-Edward III of England, grandson and last male heir of Philip IV but through his daughter and closest male relative of the late Charles IV (male from a female line + blood proximity; heir excluding female but not female lines)
-Joan (II of Navarre), female heiress of Philip IV of France and Joan I of Navarre as their granddaughter through their eldest son (genealogically senior heir of the House Capet; general heiress of Philip and Joan; heiress if female succession is allowed)
-Marie of France eldest surviving daughter of Charles IV, followed by her younger sister Blanche trough blood proximity (being the closest relative of her late father Charles IV; heiress thought blood proximity if female succession was allowed) [OTL she do not pressed any claim because she was an infant and her mother was sister of Joan of Navarre’s husband but still had another valid claim]
 
Yes. But she was easily surpassed after the deaths of her father and half-brother. Her biggest claim on the crown was made after Charles IV’s death when she was only niece of the late King (and daughter of a previous one).
Eh? What's her claim got to do with you wrongly saying she wasn't the remaining offspring of the King? I'm not disputing her being passed over initially, I'm talking about her claim coming from her being her father's child..
 
Eh? What's her claim got to do with you wrongly saying she wasn't the remaining offspring of the King? I'm not disputing her being passed over initially, I'm talking about her claim coming from her being her father's child..
The point is who your definition is not correct as at the time in which Joan claimed the Crown the daughter of the deceased King was Marie (and the newborn Blanche). Joan was the general heiress of her grandparents, her cousin and niece-in-law Marie was the daughter of the late King.
 
The point is who your definition is not correct as at the time in which Joan claimed the Crown the daughter of the deceased King was Marie (and the newborn Blanche). Joan was the general heiress of her grandparents, her cousin and niece-in-law Marie was the daughter of the late King.
I'm right in that her claim comes from her royal father - who was king before her cousin's fathers - and I didn't make any reference to when she brought out her claim. I could argue it was simply because she was underage at that previous time and had noone to make the claim for her (or rather continue to do so in the case of Burgundy).
 
Top