Poll: Which Valois King would you give a longer Reign?

Which Valois King would you give a longer Reign?


  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .
So I recently started reading a bio on Catherine de Medici and I was shocked by how young many French Kings were when they died. Henri II was only 40, his sons Francois II and Charles IX 16 and 23, respectively. And, though not as young as his brothers, Henri III died at 37. So of the four, which King would you give a longer reign and why? And if you vote please give an answer, I'm interesting in peoples views on this.
 
Henri III, most likely because a longer reign would allow him to finish what he had started and what his cousin Henri de Navarre (OTL Henri IV) finished. This would also give him a chance to clear his name, as he still suffers from quite a tarnished image.

That being said, he is also a bit of winner by default as I'm not really convinced of the other three reigning longer being good and without difficulty. A longer reigning Henri II would most likely crack down on the Protestants, which could potentially get France into greater trouble. François II living longer would see the Guise dominate the court and would probably lead to diplomatic tensions with England as his wife was none other than Mary Stuart, Queen of the Scots. As for Charles IX, he would have to cope with the Saint Barthélemy slaughter and the rift created from it.
 
Henri II because his death was basically a freak accident. He was injured in a joust, when the tip of his opponent's lance broke, and the splinters went through his visor and into his eye.

If he doesn't get injured in that tournament, he could live another ten to twenty years easily...
 
This list is not about all the Valois kings (1328-1589) but only about some of the Valois Angoulème (starting in 1515 with Francis I).

In your short list, I would choose Francis II since he was the husband of Mary Stuart, which would be very interesting if they had male children. I would like to have a french-scot personal union. This could mean an edict of religious tolerance for the two kingdoms 20 years earlier.

This would also completely change the relations with England.

Huge consequences.
 
Poll is flawed because of the absence of my favorite Valois king, Louis XII. If he lives longer he might have a son by Mary Tudor. In which case that insufferable brat Francis of Angouleme (actual Louis XII quote about Francis I: "that big boy will ruin everything!") would find himself no more than the Duke of Brittany, which remains independent.

Also it gives Louis XII more time to fight for his rightful place as King of Naples and Duke of Milan. He was the rightful heir to the Kingdom of Jerusalem as well, but retaking that would have probably been considerably more complicated.
 
Henri III, most likely because a longer reign would allow him to finish what he had started and what his cousin Henri de Navarre (OTL Henri IV) finished. This would also give him a chance to clear his name, as he still suffers from quite a tarnished image.

He deserves it. No, he wasn't actually a cross-dressing homosexual--but when virtually every faction sees you as devious and unreliable, regardless of their religious and political stances--well, it says something.

That stated, he and his father are the two kings in this poll most likely to actually live longer...
 
Charles IX, though not for him, rather so that young Henri can have a longer run on the Polish-Lithuanian throne.
 
Wow no love for Charles IX? I mean I get why, the whole St. Bartholomew's Day massacre but he was the only male Valois of the last generation to father children, a girl with Elisabeth of Austria and a bastard boy. Francois supposedly wasn't able and Henri III's wife Louise had an early miscarriage, rendering her sterile (at least that seems to be the consensus).
 
Matteo said:
This list is not about all the Valois kings (1328-1589) but only about some of the Valois Angoulème (starting in 1515 with Francis I).
What you said is true. However, I think he only points out the last Valois kings because the other Valois monarchs, except for Charles VIII (who died in a pretty stupid accident by the way), all lived pretty long compared to them.
Matteo said:
In your short list, I would choose Francis II since he was the husband of Mary Stuart, which would be very interesting if they had male children. I would like to have a french-scot personal union. This could mean an edict of religious tolerance for the two kingdoms 20 years earlier.
If you want to look at a TL working on that scenario, have a look at Thepistron6000's A more personnal union: it's a very interesting and well worked timeline.

That said, I am skeptical on the idea that François II would bring religious tolerance given that the Guise were strong in court during his reign... Do not forget that they would also be the Queen's family in this scenario (the Duke of Guise was Mary's uncle).
Space Oddity said:
He deserves it. No, he wasn't actually a cross-dressing homosexual--but when virtually every faction sees you as devious and unreliable, regardless of their religious and political stances--well, it says something.
You can be seen as devious and unreliable because you switch sides... Something you will inevitably have to do when you try to keep a balance between Catholic and Protestant parties like Henri III tried to do during his reign.
jakewilson said:
Charles IX, though not for him, rather so that young Henri can have a longer run on the Polish-Lithuanian throne.
Not sure this would be a good thing for the Poles: Henri hated the time he spent there... Why would he have fled Poland when he got the chance otherwise?
Emperor Constantine said:
Wow no love for Charles IX? I mean I get why, the whole St. Bartholomew's Day massacre but he was the only male Valois of the last generation to father children, a girl with Elisabeth of Austria and a bastard boy. Francois supposedly wasn't able and Henri III's wife Louise had an early miscarriage, rendering her sterile (at least that seems to be the consensus).
Honestly, I'm not sure we would want Charles IX to live longer: he didn't took the St. Barthélémy very well and it supposedly worsened his already weak health OTL. Plus, he would be seen by the Protestants as the Devil given the slaugther, and they would never accept him as King. Yes, he could save the dynasty because his wife wasn't sterile, but he would still go through a rough time.
 
That said, I am skeptical on the idea that François II would bring religious tolerance given that the Guise were strong in court during his reign... Do not forget that they would also be the Queen's family in this scenario (the Duke of Guise was Mary's uncle).

Actually, the Guises' views on religious tolerance were surprisingly complex, and changed over times--the simplistic view of them as fanatical Huguenot-haters doesn't really bear up under investigation. Even Catholic League leader Henri de Guise famously took action to protect Huguenots during the St. Bartholomew Massacre, and by some accounts was assuring people in private that he was certain once things calmed down they could get some sort of Lutheran-style toleration in France. Just no Protestant kings. And more power to the Estates.


You can be seen as devious and unreliable because you switch sides... Something you will inevitably have to do when you try to keep a balance between Catholic and Protestant parties like Henri III tried to do during his reign.

Or because you're clearly trying to play both ends against the middle, something both ends dislike. Again, it's worth noting that Henri IV, despite some difficulties, was eventually able to get most people on his side despite switching to Catholicism. I'd argue that what people wanted from the Crown was clarity on religious matters and reform. Henri III offered neither. No one trusts a king who says 'toleration' on Tuesday and 'persecution' on Wednesday.

I think I should make my feelings on the man clear--like Charles I of England, he had many attractive personal qualities. It is easy to focus on these--and the 'no real good guys' nature of the War of Religions--and view him as a sympathetic man trying to do what was best. But (again like Charles I) he was a wannabe absolutist who lacked the skills and qualities needed to ride out the political storm, who constantly overplayed his hand, tended to take the most amoral route possible and who probably did the nation a favor dying when he did.
 

Dorozhand

Banned
I voted Henri II. All of his successors were weak and wishy-washy during a time when a strong monarch was needed to unite the factions and prevent the bloodshed of the wars of religion. Henri II, while far from ideal, was better than any of the others, and a longer reign could have been beneficial to the French people.
 
Top