ruling house of France

Who should rule France

  • Capet

    Votes: 22 61.1%
  • Valois

    Votes: 7 19.4%
  • Valois-Orleans

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • Valois angoueleme

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bourbon

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
Related to my other thread, which dynasty should rule France?

Capets or Valois?

This is with a pod in 1298 where the house of Bruce remains on the 5rkne of Scotland and eventually rules England
 
Last edited:
Why only these houses when there were too Bourbons, Órleans and Bonapartes? And Valois was indeed cadet branch of Capets' so it was practycally one house.
 
Why only these houses when there were too Bourbons, Órleans and Bonapartes? And Valois was indeed cadet branch of Capets' so it was practycally one house.
With the pod in 1296,I’m not sure if the Bonapartes or Orleans or bourbons would take the 5rone or exist in their otl existence
 
I have a hard time thinking why Charles VIII and Louis XII who are second cousins once removed, are of the same Valois dynasty, while Philip VI and Charles IV, who were merely first cousins, both instances of the male line, are of different dynasties, Capet and Valois.
 
Last edited:
I have a hard thinking why Charles VIII and Louis XII who are second cousins once removed, are of the same Valois dynasty, while Philip VI and Charles IV, who were merely first cousins, both instances of the male line, are of different dynasties, Capet and Valois.
Historically they were counted as Valois mainline and Valois Orleans
 
France was ruled by the same dynasty from 987 to 1792 (and for a very short rerun from 1814/15 to 1830, Louis-Philip I, although a Capetian, being by all standards an usurper who staged a coup by having himself named king instead of fulfilling the part of regent which had been assigned to him).

The elder cadet male line accessed to the throne only when the direct male senior line became extinct.

There was no such thing as coups by a cadet line against the ruling head of the senior line, that is against the legitimate king.

It happened in Castile. It happened in England. It happened elsewhere.

But it never happened in France (of course before the revolution wiped everything out). The sense of legitimacy was so strong that even insane kings such as Charles VI were not forced to abdicate.
 
France was ruled by the same dynasty from 987 to 1792 (and for a very short rerun from 1814/15 to 1830, Louis-Philip I, although a Capetian, being by all standards an usurper who staged a coup by having himself named king instead of fulfilling the part of regent which had been assigned to him).

The elder cadet male line accessed to the throne only when the direct male senior line became extinct.

There was no such thing as coups by a cadet line against the ruling head of the senior line, that is against the legitimate king.

It happened in Castile. It happened in England. It happened elsewhere.

But it never happened in France (of course before the revolution wiped everything out). The sense of legitimacy was so strong that even insane kings such as Charles VI were not forced to abdicate.

Indeed, yet the Valois and their numerous cadet branches were considered exactly that, cadet branches of the mainline, not the mainline itself, that was what I was getting at.
 
Indeed, yet the Valois and their numerous cadet branches were considered exactly that, cadet branches of the mainline, not the mainline itself, that was what I was getting at.

The Valois were a cadet line as long as there was an elder line. This lasted barely 2 generations, Charles of Valois being born in 1270 and his elder son becoming king in 1328. But in 1328, what had been the senior line became extinct on the male side.

But what I don’t understand is the meaning of your initial question.
 
The Valois were a cadet line as long as there was an elder line. This lasted barely 2 generations, Charles of Valois being born in 1270 and his elder son becoming king in 1328. But in 1328, what had been the senior line became extinct on the male side.

But what I don’t understand is the meaning of your initial question.

My initial question is, in the timeline that I'm planning, which has a pod in 1296, where the Bruce dynasty continues through a son being born to Robert the Bruce of Scotland and his wife Isabella of Mar, should the ruling dynasty of France be the descendants of Philip IV, or descended from Charles of Valois
 
Top