What if All of the Male Bourbons Die Off in the 1600s?

So you may ask : what if there was no longer any survivor capetian on the male line ? They would go for a legitimized bastard of the most recent king. That's what Portugal did in the late 14th century when it wanted to have a "national" king at all cost.
So does that mean that the Bourbon-Bussets will inherit the French throne if/after all of the male Courtenays would have died off as well?
 
Just how large was Navarre's Army during this time, though?

Also, I actually don't think that the Bourbon-Vendome branch of the House of Bourbon were prominent Dukes. Indeed, the elder Bourbon branch appears to have been much more prominent and much wealthier than the Bourbon-Vendome branch was. (Of course, the elder Bourbon branch became extinct in the male line in 1527, so yeah. :()

Pitiful, but at least it existed.

In terms of prominence - well, I take your point, but in 1589, there were 20-odd non-episcopal Dukes in France, and only two extant dukedoms were older than those held by Henri IV. Almost all of the others had been created in the last 50 years, and when all's said and done, the lands attached to the Dukedom of Bourbon - the last surviving major feudal territory - were pretty extensive.

@Matteo - well, the whole point of Henri converting to Catholicism was because the nobles and notables weren't sure that they wanted a Capetian on the throne. Hence the big war. A Capetian who was essentially a country squire, with none of the advantages which Henri IV had, would have even less support unless he was malleable enough to act as a puppet for one of the factions. As I say, there was some support for crowning Guise in the Catholic camp.

But a bastard is certainly a good alternative option, with the caveat that Joao of Aviz was a political genius, and even he had to fight a civil war against Castile and three other claimants before he could take the throne, and later on, the Prior of Crato had all the advantages you point out and the nobility of Portugal flocked to Felipe instead (at first).

So you make good points, but the truth is much less clear-cut than you present it as.
 
Pitiful, but at least it existed.

OK.

In terms of prominence - well, I take your point, but in 1589, there were 20-odd non-episcopal Dukes in France, and only two extant dukedoms were older than those held by Henri IV. Almost all of the others had been created in the last 50 years, and when all's said and done, the lands attached to the Dukedom of Bourbon - the last surviving major feudal territory - were pretty extensive.

Please keep in mind, though, that the Bourbon-Vendome branch did not inherit either the Duchy of Bourbon or any of the lands which were attached to this Duchy. :( Indeed, as a result of the treason of Charles III, Duke of Bourbon, French King Francis I took away both all of the lands and the title of the Duke of Bourbon and decided not to give either any of these lands or this title to the Bourbon-Vendome branch. :(

@Matteo - well, the whole point of Henri converting to Catholicism was because the nobles and notables weren't sure that they wanted a Capetian on the throne. Hence the big war. A Capetian who was essentially a country squire, with none of the advantages which Henri IV had, would have even less support unless he was malleable enough to act as a puppet for one of the factions. As I say, there was some support for crowning Guise in the Catholic camp.

But a bastard is certainly a good alternative option, with the caveat that Joao of Aviz was a political genius, and even he had to fight a civil war against Castile and three other claimants before he could take the throne, and later on, the Prior of Crato had all the advantages you point out and the nobility of Portugal flocked to Felipe instead (at first).

So you make good points, but the truth is much less clear-cut than you present it as.

Unlike Henry IV before 1593 or 1594, though, weren't the Courtenays Catholic?
 
Unlike Henry IV before 1593 or 1594, though, weren't the Courtenays Catholic?

Yes. My point was that Henri had to convert in order to win the support of a large section of the nobility, so Matteo's contention that the electors would automatically go for the next Capetian heir isn't true.
 
Pitiful, but at least it existed.

In terms of prominence - well, I take your point, but in 1589, there were 20-odd non-episcopal Dukes in France, and only two extant dukedoms were older than those held by Henri IV. Almost all of the others had been created in the last 50 years, and when all's said and done, the lands attached to the Dukedom of Bourbon - the last surviving major feudal territory - were pretty extensive.

@Matteo - well, the whole point of Henri converting to Catholicism was because the nobles and notables weren't sure that they wanted a Capetian on the throne. Hence the big war. A Capetian who was essentially a country squire, with none of the advantages which Henri IV had, would have even less support unless he was malleable enough to act as a puppet for one of the factions. As I say, there was some support for crowning Guise in the Catholic camp.

But a bastard is certainly a good alternative option, with the caveat that Joao of Aviz was a political genius, and even he had to fight a civil war against Castile and three other claimants before he could take the throne, and later on, the Prior of Crato had all the advantages you point out and the nobility of Portugal flocked to Felipe instead (at first).

So you make good points, but the truth is much less clear-cut than you present it as.

I think you are making a wrong assession of the political situation in France by the death of Henry III.

The only serious rival for the legal heir Henry of Navarre was an other Bourbon : the cardinal Charles of Bourbon. Only the Guise had dreamt of replacing the Capetians and it cost their leader his life.

Let's sum-up the political situation in France. France was very different from England. The throne was not won by conquest. There was no Magna Carta, no Westminster Parliament, no murder of the king when a noble party could no longer bear this king's personality or policy.

The point is that the french ruling class wanted to have something new because it was the first time they had to deal with such a question. They not only wanted to have the legal heir in the throne but they also wanted a legal heir that be roman catholic.

But they strongly rejected the idea of having a foreign catholic king, of even worse a queen, which Philip II of Spain deluded about with his daughter by a Valois royal princess.
 
If the bourbons died out after the english civil war, I find it even more likely that the Courtney Capet would of been accepted as king. A very weak king but king non the less.

Divergence of tradition, in other words the House of Capet and the House of France being one, could lead to chaos which added to the fact that the House of Courtney would of been the de jure heirs, they would of garnered a lot of support. The nobles and ones reaching for the throne through new tradition would of feared chaos and that could lead to Charles' fate.
 
I suspect that if the extinction of the Bourbons became probable, there would have been some royal effort to either support the Courtenays or find an acceptable candidate before the king croaked.

Henry III had made similar preparations once his brother died, and the last quarter of the 17th century was basically spent in political maneuvering over who should succeed Carlos II in Spain.

Now, just because a king tried to solidify the succession doesn't mean he would succeed (as the gazillion Wars of X Succession demonstrated), but it doesn't mean that e.g. the House of Courtenay would be completely friendless when it came time to succeed, unless the king's death was sudden and young.
 
Top