Supposing Philip V of France lives longer...

Philip V of France, second son of Philip IV of France, ascended the throne under rather strange circumstances (as his claim to the throne was based on an interpretation of Salic Law that stipulated females could not inherit the throne, thus putting him ahead of his niece Joan of Navarre). Of Philip IV's sons he was the most politically astute and strongest, and his marriage was the happiest among his siblings.

Now, supposing he does not get ill and die at the age of thirty, what would the long-term ramifications of him surviving, and if he manages to father a son, what could happen?
 
First obvious consequense: Edward III of England doesn't have a claim on the throne of France. We are also spared three disastrous kings in a row: Charles IV, Philip VI and John II. There will be a war with England anyway, but quite different from OTL's Hundred Years War.
 
I'm not aware of any other interpretation of Salic law, and the circumstances don't seem to me to be so strange. Philippe's rival was his niece Jeanne, later Jeanne II of Navarre, and she was a young child, her paternity was, perhaps unfairly, in some doubt and there was no precedent for female succession. It would have taken a superhuman effort of will for Philippe not to claim the throne, and as far as I can see there wasn't a great deal of demur. Not none, but he appears to have had little difficulty in making his claim good.

He does seem to have been a great deal more able and energetic than either his brother or his cousin. Apart from the unknowable course of events with his hand instead of theirs on the helm, longer life for him could have obviated Edward III's claim even if he did not have a son. The claim was based on being the male in nearest proximity of blood to Charles IV, and a grandson of Philippe V might by the time he died have had a better claim on that basis. Whether the succession would in fact have gone that way (presuming Philippe survived his younger brother) or agnatically to the Valois line is also unknowable.

Proponents of the Spanish Bourbon claim to the French succession argue that France's succession laws and order are fixed and unalterable for all time, therefore the Utrecht renunciation of the Duke of Anjou, Felipe V of Spain, was invalid. In fact they have been altered, or perhaps defined to meet new situations would be a better way of putting it, several times over the centuries. This was one of the times, and the laws were in something of a state of flux. If there had been a suitable adult French male to claim semi-Salically and under proximity of blood at the time Philippe VI made his own claim, the succession could very easily have been settled that way instead.

There wasn't, the person best able to claim being fifteen years old and, worse, King of England. So full Salic became established and has been the law ever since. That at any rate is how I see events, which would have been much changed by the mooted prolongation of Philippe V's reign.
 
Last edited:
Philip V of France, second son of Philip IV of France, ascended the throne under rather strange circumstances (as his claim to the throne was based on an interpretation of Salic Law that stipulated females could not inherit the throne, thus putting him ahead of his niece Joan of Navarre). Of Philip IV's sons he was the most politically astute and strongest, and his marriage was the happiest among his siblings.

Now, supposing he does not get ill and die at the age of thirty, what would the long-term ramifications of him surviving, and if he manages to father a son, what could happen?

He will probably continue to reform the Kingdom of France as his father with the same councillors, his father had (the famous "Légistes" for those who survived Louis X reign and Charles de Valois jealousy).

After the death of his uncle, Charles de Valois, the opposition to his reign will become very soft as his younger brother Charles (OTL Charles IV) and his cousin (OTL Philippe VI) were not very brilliant...

If he lived as long as his father (46 years), he will reign until 1337, so 21 years...

If he had a son, so logically after 1322, this son will be very young at his father death and probably a regency will happened during severals years...
 
I'm not aware of any other interpretation of Salic law, and the circumstances don't seem to me to be so strange. Philippe's rival was his niece Jeanne, later Jeanne II of Navarre, and she was a young child, her paternity was, perhaps unfairly, in some doubt and there was no precedent for female succession. It would have taken a superhuman effort of will for Philippe not to claim the throne, and as far as I can see there wasn't a great deal of demur. Not none, but he appears to have had little difficulty in making his claim good.

He does seem to have been a great deal more able and energetic than either his brother or his cousin. Apart from the unknowable course of events with his hand instead of theirs on the helm, longer life for him could have obviated Edward III's claim even if he did not have a son. The claim was based on being the male in nearest proximity of blood to Charles IV, and a grandson of Philippe V might by the time he died have had a better claim on that basis. Whether the succession would in fact have gone that way (presuming Philippe survived his younger brother) or agnatically to the Valois line is also unknowable.

Proponent of the Spanish Bourbon claim to the French succession argue that France's succession laws and order are fixed and unalterable for all time, therefore the Utrecht renunciation of the Duke of Anjou, Felipe V of Spain, was invalid. In fact they have been altered, or perhaps defined to meet new situations would be a better way of putting it, several times over the centuries. This was one of the times, and the laws were in something of a state of flux. If there had been a suitable adult French male to claim semi-Salically and under proximity of blood at the time Philippe VI made his own claim, the succession could very easily have been settled that way instead.

There wasn't, the person best able to claim being fifteen years old and, worse, King of England. So full Salic became established and has been the law ever since. That at any rate is how I see events, which would have been much changed by the mooted prolongation of Philippe V's reign.

So the first one is that pure Salic Law might not be appropriated at this point. Another is that France is likely to continue being the greatest power in Europe - if Philip I could not exit Île-de-France without risking being kidnapped for ransom, and his descendant Philip IV could control Popes, it says something.

The HYW broke French power enough that its rivals could claim enough power as a counterweight, yet of course France remained a great European power - even to today. ;)
 
Philip V living longer doesn't necessarily butterfly the HYW, but might postpone it. He had apparently two sons (some say only one) who both died before him OTL. And his wife, Joan of Burgundy, became unable to bear a child after a troubled pregnancy.

Philip V can remarry of course, but Joan of Burgundy only died in 1330, and he would be 39 by that point. At best he would have a decade or two to father another child. A son would secure his bloodline, a daughter would have the successoral question rise again after his death.

If one of his sons from Joan of Burgundy survives, he could succeed him as King of France. What is also interesting is that it would bring Franche-Comté and Artois in the Kingdom of France, as they were the inheritance of Philip V's wife. Artois can however lead to trouble, as succession there is heavily contested by Robert III, who said he had been spoiled of it. Robert III of Artois is no harmless ennemy : some say he played a great role in having the Hundread Years' War happen OTL.
But if Philip's son and heir isn't born from Joan, then Franche-Comté and Artois wouldn't come into the Kingdom of France.

Another difficulty is that Philip V was contested by Eudes IV of Burgundy, his cousin. The reason is linked to the succession of Louis X and his posthumous son John I. As was already said, Philip V used Salic Law so that he would be crowned and not his niece Joan of Navarra.
However, in an agreement prior to John I's birth and short reign, Philip had agreed that, should Clemence of Hungary bore a daughter, Joan would receive Navarre and Champagne while Philip would have the French crown. After posthumous baby-king John I was born, his uncle said the agreement was no longer valid. Eudes IV however contested this as John I could be considered stillborn, having only lived 5 days. Yet, Philip V was crowned as king of France and Navarre, using Salic Law.

Plus, after Philip's death, Joan would no longer be a 4 year old as she was when her uncle took the crown. Plus, she had married her cousin Philip of Evreux, killing every fear she could marry a foreign prince. Thus, she could value her rights after Philip V's death if she is willing to do so. And if she doesn't, it is highly likely that her son would : OTL, that son was Charles II the Bad, King of Navarre and a complete douchbad (he earned his nickname for numerous treasons).

On a side note, if Philip V has a son, this could delay or suppress the fact male relatives coming from female lines can't be King of France. That part of the French Salic Law was only declared after the death of Charles IV OTL, it wouldn't have been yet in this scenario.

(Sorry if this post wasn't very clear, but I was kind of in a rush)
 
Don't worry, that was clear enough. I have been looking at possible successors to a longer-lived Philippe V. I hadn't known that his wife had been rendered sterile, though I had noted that her last pregnancy, a daughter, was a stillbirth. This was in 1322, after a gap of four years from the birth of a short-lived son, Louis. This was also the year in which Philippe died in real life, so I would say we can't know for sure whether she could have borne more children. Anyway, let's assume for argument's sake that she didn't, and died in 1330 as actually happened, survived ITTL by her husband.

Lacking a son and, by that time, a brother (Charles the never-now-IV died in 1328) he assuredly would have married again. A son from his second marriage would have been unquestioned heir even if, as is likely, a minor when his father died. A daughter could, it already seems established, not have succeeded in her own right and also would be too young to have a son for whom claim could be made (and anyway junior to the daughters of the first marriage). Again for argument's sake, let's say no children or at any rate sons from the second marriage and, to give a starting point, kill Philippe off at 50, which would be 1342.

Potential contenders for the crown would be:

1) his grandson by his eldest daughter Joan, Countess of Burgundy in her own right and Duchess of same by marriage, Philippe, an only child and 19 years old in 1342;

2) his cousin the Count of Valois, the Philippe VI of our timeline, 49;

3) his great-nephew Charles, later Charles II of Navarre, son of Joan II of same, 10;

4) his cousin Philippe III of Navarre, husband of Joan and father of Charles, and claiming jure uxoris.

Of these four, Valois would have been claiming as senior agnate. But that was not then an established basis for claim, and assuming that Philippe V had himself preferred and nominated his grandson, heir to both Burgundies, I think he, #1 above, would have easily carried the day. Claims #s 3 and 4 may be conflated. Their weakness is that Philippe V was undoubted King after Louis X from whom their claim ultimately derived. Proximity of blood depends on degree of relation to the last king to reign, and his nephew by marriage and great-nephew would struggle to say they were more proximate than his grandson.

So I am going to say that the heir to Burgundy is crowned, perhaps after some debate and manoeuvring and maybe with a minor war or two to follow. However, if we are not as merciful to the Philippe VI of this timeline as we were to his grandfather then he enjoys his crown for four short years before dying himself. Since this was through an accident he may well not have done, since as King of France he is unlikely to have been in the same place doing the same things as he was in life. If we kill him anyway and assume his marriage took place as in history, then his heir is his only son, born 1346 and King as Philippe VII almost straight away. His sixteen-year reign, again adhering to history, is terminated by plague, and being 16 he is as one would expect childless.

France at this point is beginning to feel that it is paying a high price for the 300 years of unbroken succession from father to son that marked the Direct Capetians. However, the successor is quite clear. The line of Philippe V's eldest daughter Joan is now exhausted, so the nearest male kin of Philippe VII is his first cousin once removed Louis II of Flanders, grandson of Philippe V by his second daughter Margaret and 32 at the time of his (probable) accession as Louis XI. In a familiar theme he is an only child, and when he dies after a 23-year reign he leaves an only child. Unfortunately, that child is called Margaret, so here we go again.

But not necessarily. In life this Margaret, Margaret III of Flanders, married her second cousin, the real-life version of the Philippe VII discussed above, then when he died before the marriage could be consummated her second marriage was to another Philippe, Duke of Burgundy, the youngest son of Jean II of France, himself the son of the IOTL Philippe VI. The line of Dukes of Burgundy that sprang from them ended with Charles the Bold and the Habsburg inheritance. If she had still married the same who knows how her and her husband's line would have ended, but it would have begun with John the Fearless, not Duke of Burgundy but the ITTL King of France as Jean II, inheriting from his grandfather at the age of 13. And so the Valois, or a branch thereof, would finally have made it to the throne after all.
 
Last edited:
So, presuming some things happen as in OTL, the Valois ascend the throne, yet without precluding inheritance through a female, and a lack of war with England?

Pretty interesting how the slightly prolonged survival of one of Philippe le Bel's sons would change a lot.
 
I didn't start out with that goal, but caught sight of it soon enough and from then on made assumptions which led to just that, a Valois succession coming two generations later and, as you say, with no Hundred years War and semi- rather than full Salic established as the succession law. I just thought it was neat.

None of my assumptions was impossible, since they were all of things happening that actually did. Taking them one by one they each still could have. That all of them would have happened unchanged does I must admit seem unlikely. I still think it's an interesting and not utterly implausible outcome of that longer reign, though.
 
Domenic said:
Don't worry, that was clear enough. I have been looking at possible successors to a longer-lived Philippe V. I hadn't known that his wife had been rendered sterile, though I had noted that her last pregnancy, a daughter, was a stillbirth.

Well, there apparently exist historical documents that tend to say Joan of Burgundy couldn't bear any children after her last pregnancy.
My knowledge of this comes from a book on Salic Law I saw once in a Library and from the books Les Rois Maudits (The Accursed Kings) by French Author Maurice Druon. Though the latter heavily romances the events going from the burning of Jacques de Mollay up to the start of the Hundread Years' War, Druon documented itself a lot to give credibility to his story.

There also seems to be trouble in determining how many sons Philip V had in his life. In the two books I mentionned earlier, they only mention one son, stating there is a debate on his name (It could have been Louis or Philip). But Wikipedia mentions two sons : Philip (1315-1321) and Louis (1316-1317).

Domenic said:
This was in 1322, after a gap of four years from the birth of a short-lived son, Louis. This was also the year in which Philippe died in real life, so I would say we can't know for sure whether she could have borne more children.

True. Besides, the documents could have been inacurate.
I quite like the idea of Joan II of Burgundy and Philip V having a son : it brings the County of Burgundy (Franche-Comte) and Artois in the French Royal Dosmaine earlier than they did OTL.

Domenic said:
Rest of the Post

I hadn't looked in the genealogy like you did, and I must say this is a pretty unxepected issue... The Valois on the throne even if there is no HYW :eek:. But as you said in your following post, it's pretty unlikely given the butterflies that would occur.

SavoyTruffle said:
Pretty interesting how the slightly prolonged survival of one of Philippe le Bel's sons would change a lot.

True. Be it Louis X, Philip V or Charles IV, any of Philip IV's three sons living longer would have changed History and might have butterflied the Hundread Years' War. This is also true if you get John I the Posthumous to live longer than 5 days.

The fact that Philip IV's three sons dying without surviving male issue contributed heavily on the "Curse of the Templar" myth. That myth said Jacques De Molay, last Grand Master of the Templars, had cursed Philip IV's descendants up to the thirteenth generation. Ironically enough, the thirteenth generation is... Louis XVI's! (I'm not joking)
The myth also stated that De Molay had said Philip IV, Pope Clement V and Guillaume de Nogaret, leading investigator in the Templar Trial, would be brought before God's judgement within a year. As a matter of fact, they did : the Pope died one month after, Nogaret two and Philip IV nine.
 
The fact that Philip IV's three sons dying without surviving male issue contributed heavily on the "Curse of the Templar" myth. That myth said Jacques De Molay, last Grand Master of the Templars, had cursed Philip IV's descendants up to the thirteenth generation. Ironically enough, the thirteenth generation is... Louis XVI's! (I'm not joking)
The myth also stated that De Molay had said Philip IV, Pope Clement V and Guillaume de Nogaret, leading investigator in the Templar Trial, would be brought before God's judgement within a year. As a matter of fact, they did : the Pope died one month after, Nogaret two and Philip IV nine.

It's also eerie that the Valois and Bourbon branches of the family end up with similar fates before losing the throne: the last three Valois kings were brothers, the last four Bourbons before 1830 were similar to the situation of Philip IV's sons, except of course they get overthrown instead of Charles X dying.

And strangely, in all three cases one of the last monarchs is named Charles...
 
I had noticed that before. And at one time it looked as though the situation was about to repeat itself again. Although under no illusion that the French monarchy will ever be restored I am interested in succession questions, and had studied the dispute between the Orléans branch and the senior non-reigning Spanish Bourbon line over who has the right to the nominal succession.

I am firmly convinced that it is the Orléans, which made it worth noting that of the sons of the present pretender, the nominal Henri VII, the eldest François being severely mentally disabled will never have issue, the next eldest Jean was at the time a bachelor and getting long in the tooth for it, so it looked as if the succession might go François (III), Jean (IV), then the youngest, Eudes (II). The precedents were not encouraging for the line continuing after that, even though Eudes did have a son, Pierre, and there wasn't any kingdom left for the line to be deprived of. Since then the situation has changed as Jean did marry then have a son, Gaston, in fact he needed to be quick about it in case he had a son then married. Three remarkable coincidences were enough, I guess.
 
I had noticed that before. And at one time it looked as though the situation was about to repeat itself again. Although under no illusion that the French monarchy will ever be restored I am interested in succession questions, and had studied the dispute between the Orléans branch and the senior non-reigning Spanish Bourbon line over who has the right to the nominal succession.

I am firmly convinced that it is the Orléans, which made it worth noting that of the sons of the present pretender, the nominal Henri VII, the eldest François being severely mentally disabled will never have issue, the next eldest Jean was at the time a bachelor and getting long in the tooth for it, so it looked as if the succession might go François (III), Jean (IV), then the youngest, Eudes (II). The precedents were not encouraging for the line continuing after that, even though Eudes did have a son, Pierre, and there wasn't any kingdom left for the line to be deprived of. Since then the situation has changed as Jean did marry then have a son, Gaston, in fact he needed to be quick about it in case he had a son then married. Three remarkable coincidences were enough, I guess.

I'm guessing with no kingdom to speak of the curse is broken for now. ;)
 
Top