Philip V of France lives longer

So, two pods here, first one is that Philip V of France's son by Joan of Burgundy survives, that means the first pod is in 1317, the second butterfly arising from this is that Philip V himself does not die in 1322, but instead lives till say 1340, dying when his son is 23.

What consequences could emerge from a longer lived Philip V, and the survivla of his son Philip?

I imagine there'd be tensions between him and England over Gascony, and perhaps with Flanders also.

WHo might his son marry?
 
Perhaps his son would be married to his cousin Joan/Joanne/Jeanne of Navarre?
Socalled Salic Law certainly won't be instituted.
 
Wouldn't there be aspersions cast on the legitimacy of this son? I mean, I know that Philippe was the only one of his brothers to not repudiate his wife (IIRC, it was a "love match"), but someone's gonna say, "Hey, you know what, both Louis X and the Comte de Champagne's wives were sluts who jumped the bones of every guy not there husband, how can we be sure about the queen?"

And which son are we talking about: I have it that he had two: Philippe (b.1313, d.1321) and Louis (b.1315, d.1316). I'm assuming since the first POD is in 1317, that it's Louis, but I just wanna be sure.
 
Wouldn't there be aspersions cast on the legitimacy of this son? I mean, I know that Philippe was the only one of his brothers to not repudiate his wife (IIRC, it was a "love match"), but someone's gonna say, "Hey, you know what, both Louis X and the Comte de Champagne's wives were sluts who jumped the bones of every guy not there husband, how can we be sure about the queen?"

And which son are we talking about: I have it that he had two: Philippe (b.1313, d.1321) and Louis (b.1315, d.1316). I'm assuming since the first POD is in 1317, that it's Louis, but I just wanna be sure.
Ah the wiki says he had one son named Philip born in 1316?

And this is true, though I'd imagine these would be whispers not open talk?
 
@Kellan Sullivan raised an interesting point, if there are rumours that Philip's son is illegitimate, then could this prompt Charles, Count of La Marche to stage a rebellion to get himself on the throne, once Philip V is dead?
 
@Kellan Sullivan raised an interesting point, if there are rumours that Philip's son is illegitimate, then could this prompt Charles, Count of La Marche to stage a rebellion to get himself on the throne, once Philip V is dead?

Don't think so. La Marche was described as beautiful as an angel and stupid as a basket IIRC, so probably not. However, I could see the Comte de Valois still trying something.
 
Wouldn't there be aspersions cast on the legitimacy of this son? I mean, I know that Philippe was the only one of his brothers to not repudiate his wife (IIRC, it was a "love match"), but someone's gonna say, "Hey, you know what, both Louis X and the Comte de Champagne's wives were sluts who jumped the bones of every guy not there husband, how can we be sure about the queen?"

And which son are we talking about: I have it that he had two: Philippe (b.1313, d.1321) and Louis (b.1315, d.1316). I'm assuming since the first POD is in 1317, that it's Louis, but I just wanna be sure.

Blanche and Margaret were formally accused of adultery and, though never judged, kept in prison till Margaret's death and Blanche's repudiation. Joan was never accused of adultery, but of non-denunciation, of which she was declared innocent after a full trial. With a clean judiciary record and a long-living Philip the Tall, only the more ill-mannered members of the court would dare to whisper about their memories of the new king's aunt and her questionnable conduct. If Mahaut d'Artois did not kill them first.
 
Blanche and Margaret were formally accused of adultery and, though never judged, kept in prison till Margaret's death and Blanche's repudiation. Joan was never accused of adultery, but of non-denunciation, of which she was declared innocent after a full trial. With a clean judiciary record and a long-living Philip the Tall, only the more ill-mannered members of the court would dare to whisper about their memories of the new king's aunt and her questionnable conduct. If Mahaut d'Artois did not kill them first.

Intriguing, so likely things settle down, until Philip's son does something to piss off a noble, then they might get brought back to light?
 
Intriguing, so likely things settle down, until Philip's son does something to piss off a noble, then they might get brought back to light?

Yes, but these are low-grade rumors, if I can say so. It was not like his mother was accused of adultery and judged innocent in a trumped trial. At worst, she helped her sister cheat on her husband. Not very queen-like, but not enough to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the King of France. With enough propaganda, Joan could appear as the saint princess of her generation ; just compare her to Blanche, Margaret and "dear sister-in-law" Isabella. Adultery and murder of your husband did not impar her son's accession to power.
 
Yes, but these are low-grade rumors, if I can say so. It was not like his mother was accused of adultery and judged innocent in a trumped trial. At worst, she helped her sister cheat on her husband. Not very queen-like, but not enough to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the King of France. With enough propaganda, Joan could appear as the saint princess of her generation ; just compare her to Blanche, Margaret and "dear sister-in-law" Isabella. Adultery and murder of your husband did not impar her son's accession to power.

ery true, so likely the only issue Philip would face from his lords would be if he does something that angers them, and also the situation in Gascony. I do wonder how Edward III handles dealing with Philip V and not the Valois
 
ery true, so likely the only issue Philip would face from his lords would be if he does something that angers them, and also the situation in Gascony. I do wonder how Edward III handles dealing with Philip V and not the Valois

The situation would be different from before Edward III's reign. Would Mortimer be welcome at the french court ? As Philip V is King of both France and Navarra, Gascony could be even more important to his eyes.
 
The situation would be different from before Edward III's reign. Would Mortimer be welcome at the french court ? As Philip V is King of both France and Navarra, Gascony could be even more important to his eyes.

This is very true, re Mortimer, I do think that Philip would see the benefit of having someone there who might cause Edward II to think twice before he advances toward anything remotely hostile. Perhaps Philip and Edward, or Philip and his sister could arrange for a marriage between Edward III and Philip's daughter Blanche?
 
This is very true, re Mortimer, I do think that Philip would see the benefit of having someone there who might cause Edward II to think twice before he advances toward anything remotely hostile. Perhaps Philip and Edward, or Philip and his sister could arrange for a marriage between Edward III and Philip's daughter Blanche?

First cousins marriage was still frown upon by the Church, even if it began to be more common. But if a marriage must go on, I propose Leonor (Edward II's only daughter, born 1318) with *Philip VI. Her dowry could include part of Gascony, allowing for (at least, temporary) settlement of the Gascon question without having anyone portrayed as a loser.
 
First cousins marriage was still frown upon by the Church, even if it began to be more common. But if a marriage must go on, I propose Leonor (Edward II's only daughter, born 1318) with *Philip VI. Her dowry could include part of Gascony, allowing for (at least, temporary) settlement of the Gascon question without having anyone portrayed as a loser.
Ah yes that makes sense. And I can see Edward iii not being happy with that whatsoever aha
 
Is there anything stopping him?

His accession was a bit...unusual. Not every king gets the throne after his mother killed his father !

OTL, Isabella got a major trump up her sleeve with her son being sent to France to swear fealty as proxy for his father. ITTL, there was no fealty crisis, as Edward II already swore fealty in 1320 and there was no reason to renew it. If a Saint-Sardos-like crisis arose, Edward II would likely do as OTL and sent his wife to negociate. Here, we can picture a Eleanor-Philip marriage as part of the peace settlement. Edward II would have no reason to send his 12 years old son to the French court. The crisis was about jurisdiction issues, not fealty, no proxy for the King was required.

Even if Isabella hooked up with Mortimer in Paris, without her son, she would be in a far weaker position. OTL, the marriage to Philippa of Hainaut gave her the means to assault England. Without it, any Isabella-Mortimer attack would be harder, maybe leading to a longer civil war, with Edward of Windsor under his father's control.
 
His accession was a bit...unusual. Not every king gets the throne after his mother killed his father !

OTL, Isabella got a major trump up her sleeve with her son being sent to France to swear fealty as proxy for his father. ITTL, there was no fealty crisis, as Edward II already swore fealty in 1320 and there was no reason to renew it. If a Saint-Sardos-like crisis arose, Edward II would likely do as OTL and sent his wife to negociate. Here, we can picture a Eleanor-Philip marriage as part of the peace settlement. Edward II would have no reason to send his 12 years old son to the French court. The crisis was about jurisdiction issues, not fealty, no proxy for the King was required.

Even if Isabella hooked up with Mortimer in Paris, without her son, she would be in a far weaker position. OTL, the marriage to Philippa of Hainaut gave her the means to assault England. Without it, any Isabella-Mortimer attack would be harder, maybe leading to a longer civil war, with Edward of Windsor under his father's control.

Hmm this is very true, though given Edward II's weak leadership, what's there to say that he doesn't end up getting replaced in the civil war either way?
 
Top