West Francia splits under Hugh Capet

After Hugh Capet imprisoned Charles of Loraine, the last Carolingian heir, the southern duchies were initially hostile to Hugh due to his deceit in capturing Charles. Although this was more political rather then dynastic could there have been a scenario where the southern duchies back a Carolingian claim to the throne and form a new kingdom in the south?
 
It was arguably a recurring feature since the proclamation of Eudes as king in 888, including the proclamation of Robert and Raoul , with Aquitain potentes being generally unsupportive of Robertian claims (while not being systematically supporting Carolingians as well) as it was seen as a threat to their own northern influence/territories.
But the war of succession of Aquitaine/Auvergne between Ramnulfids and Raimondins did changed things, and allowed some Robertian networking in the region (including matrimonial union with Ramnulfids). Thing is Robertian hegemony in Francia proper quickly declined in the late Xth century, and other families had vested interests in Aquitaine as well (Ingelgerians, Plantagenêts, and Thibaldids, notably).

So, initially, Guilhèm IV went with the general situation in WFrance, probably having a similar policy than his brothet-in-law, Eudes of Blois : supporting a Robertian king that wouldn't be too powerful, but enough to prevent another house issued from Robertian decline to meddle too much in Aquitaine
(We don't have much about Toulouse in this period, to the point that several counts might have been overlooked in the official list : it seems they didn't have much interest on what happens in the North, everything goes as long they're not involved, which paradoxically helps Capetian claims)
The duke changed his mind with Hughes Capet breaking his word and constraining Charles, which happened in the same time that Hugues wanted to enforce his claims on Aquitaine. But it was relatively resolved quickly, because nobody really had an interest (or the possibility?) going full war.

The main issues seems to have come later, in the last decade of the century, when you had a very general aristocratic opposition to Hugues, and even there Guilhèm's hostility seems to have been relatively lukewarm. By the time Guilhèm IV acknowledges Louis as a possible king and host him in Aquitaine, the opportunity to set up Louis on the WFRench throne is gone, Robertians having rooted their presence and Ramnulfids having few allies left in Northern France that would consider overthrowing Robert II. This isolation (and the relative couldn't care less attitude of southern potentes) prevents at this point a real chance of a separate Aquitain kingship : in fact, even the idea of an integrated kingship seems to be gone at this point, due to the general disorder.

So while Guilhèm IV does seems to have supported the idea of a Carolingian king past 987, it was relative to its own interests and the more serious attempts were in alliance with French potentes. I think it's relatively too late, safe some changes.
- Either reduce or butterfly away the War of Succession of Auvergne, in order to make Aquitain territories at least roughly unified
- Have Late Carolingians effectively having a hold on Aquitaine, even if it's likely it would be essentially trough networking. If not the whole concept of a distinct Aquitain kingship from French kingship wouldn't even be considered, and at best it would mean a step ground for taking back French kingship as it happened IOTL in the Xth century.
- Have Charles of Lower Lotharingia being crowned king in 993, delaying the succession crisis in a XIth century where Robertians would have an harder time being considered an alternative. Maybe, but that's open to discussion, Ottonian influence (which was a really important factor in Xth century France) to prevent a French takeover of Lotharingia (that Charles would probably have been forced to give to his son definitively, but that wouldn't at the latest provide certainty that the duke wouldn't join French armies), which was the usual obsession of Late Carolingians, and act in favor of a divided kingship in France and Aquitaine, with the clear idea influencing both, or at least Aquitaine.

(I may have missed several things, the whole situation is clear as mud, so i'll check on what I have later)
 
It seems that Hugh's unanimous election gave him a compelling argument for his authority which seemed kind of tenuous as it was. Perhaps if at least some of the electors didn't vote for him, it would be a critical setback to Hugh's cause, potentially creating an opportunity for William IV to set Louis on the throne? Although this may be difficult as it's hard for me to see anyone vote for Charles of Loraine after he aligned with Otto II, perhaps if he didn't marry Bonne? Although that seems relatively minor compared to betraying your country.
 
It seems that Hugh's unanimous election gave him a compelling argument for his authority which seemed kind of tenuous as it was.
Well, it's because his authority was significantly reduced compared to his father's and ancestors that he was unanimously chosen : his lineage made him an obvious alternative, that could be chosen even more easily because he couldn't use much power to enforce royal authority over the potentes.
For various reasons, everyone tought they had something to win over it : Eudes de Blois, notably, seems to have been convinced he would become the Duke of Franks.

Perhaps if at least some of the electors didn't vote for him, it would be a critical setback to Hugh's cause, potentially creating an opportunity for William IV to set Louis on the throne?
William IV had no control over Louis at this point : he remained with his father until 991 and was jailed/taken hostage in 993. I don't rightly remember when he was freed but I think it was during Robert II's reign, and he was in Aquitaine only in the late 1000's/early 1010's.
Louis' status in Aquitaine is kind of vague : he was acknowledged as "Louis, son of the king Charles" and not as king himself. it might be due to his difficult legitimacy, and the lack of claim from his brother : maybe he was just a vague reminder to Robert II.

Although that seems relatively minor compared to betraying your country.
His reputation as a serial traitor certainly doesn't help, but giving Hugues didn't have much better of a reputation in 991, if Eudes' tentative is successful you might see Charles replacing Hugues in France and acknowledged by everyone, for a time.
 
Top