The Burgundian Kings of France

In October 1422, a rumor spread through that the Dauphin, leader of France against the Anglo-Burgundians, had died when a floor collapsed under him.

This rumor turned out to be false; the collapse did happen, but the Dauphin was not among those killed. But suppose he was.

In theory, this leaves the child king Henry VI with no one to oppose him! The next claimant, Charles, Duke of Orleans, is already a prisoner in an English castle! God has shown his favor!

Except...

The Burgundians and the Armagnacs had allied plenty of times during the course of the Hundred Years War. And Burgundian rapprochement with France proved fatal to the English cause after the Treaty of Arras in 1435...

Given that the English still go through a regency for Henry VI, an insane king, perhaps we just see a French state that begins the early modern period with control of the Low Countries?
 
In October 1422, a rumor spread through that the Dauphin, leader of France against the Anglo-Burgundians, had died when a floor collapsed under him.

This rumor turned out to be false; the collapse did happen, but the Dauphin was not among those killed. But suppose he was.

In theory, this leaves the child king Henry VI with no one to oppose him! The next claimant, Charles, Duke of Orleans, is already a prisoner in an English castle! God has shown his favor!

Except...

The Burgundians and the Armagnacs had allied plenty of times during the course of the Hundred Years War. And Burgundian rapprochement with France proved fatal to the English cause after the Treaty of Arras in 1435...

Strictly speaking, the English cause was clearly doomed even before this treaty: their most ambitious plan was to retain Normandy. It is just that combination of an obviously lost cause with the claim to the throne of France made Congress of Arras a pointless affair (which the English delegation had to leave in mid-session to deal with a raid by French captains Xaintrailles and La Hire). The Burgundians had been just leaving a sinking ship early enough to get substantial concessions from the French Crown.

But in 1422 situation is not that obvious and, if we assume that the Armagnac party is willing to negotiate with Burgundy (the itchy issue was revenge for the murder of John the Fearless) then you have an united front against the English. However, I'm not too sure that being a prisoner disqualifies Charles of Orleans from being a king: his release could be negotiated and in a meantime France is being ruled by his representative. But OK, let's assume that he died in captivity (ate something disagreeable).

Given that the English still go through a regency for Henry VI, an insane king, perhaps we just see a French state that begins the early modern period with control of the Low Countries?

In 1422 Henry VI is one year old and his future insanity is irrelevant. Neither is Phillip II in control of all Netherlands: only in 1433 he got counties of Hainaut (Hennegau), Zeeland, Holland, and Frisia from the last heiress of Bavaria-Straubing and he bought the duchy of Luxemburg in 1441. It is an open question if this would be possible for the king of France: these lands being in the HRE, the emperor could, at least in theory, gave them to somebody else. In general, even his possessions circa 1422 would have him in a dubious position, making him a vassal of an emperor while also being a king of France. Similar situation resulted in the 100YW: independent king of England was reluctant to pay homage to the king of France in his capacity of a French duke.

Of course, economic advantages would be great including denying (in few decades) control of these lands to the Hapsburgs. OTOH, there were substantial differences between France and the Netherlands where each region had its own "freedoms" which it was intended to defend (it took Maximilian years of fighting to establish at least some control over "Burgundian inheritance"). So, a lot depends on how the Burgundian kings of France are approaching the situation.
 
Top