What if Mary of Burgundy was born as a boy?

Basically, what if, when Charles the rash dies in 1477 as otl, he has a 19 yr old son to succeed him instead of a daughter.
 
The House of Borgogne-Valois dies off eventually. I love the idea, and have fleshed out several scenarios myself, but I can hardly see the mish-mash of titles that was the 'Duchy of Burgundy' making the transition to a modern state. It either gets inherited by someone else, conquered, or otherwise split up by its larger surrounding powers. If you don't change anything else, Burgundy as-is IOTL is pretty much destined to go away---if not to inheritance in the late 15th century, then to collapse under the weight of Lowlander autonomy/independence movements.
 
The House of Borgogne-Valois dies off eventually. I love the idea, and have fleshed out several scenarios myself, but I can hardly see the mish-mash of titles that was the 'Duchy of Burgundy' making the transition to a modern state. It either gets inherited by someone else, conquered, or otherwise split up by its larger surrounding powers. If you don't change anything else, Burgundy as-is IOTL is pretty much destined to go away---if not to inheritance in the late 15th century, then to collapse under the weight of Lowlander autonomy/independence movements.

Not necessarily, since the most likely area to stay under Burgundian rule is the Burgundian Netherlands; so instead of Lowlander autonomy/independence 'Burgundy'* will be the Low Countries.
Keeping it together won't be much harder than your average power in the HRE (most of them were a mish-mash of titles too), though like OTL the Spanish and Austrian Netherlands, Lorraine and Savoy they are likely to suffer some territorial losses due to French expansionism, since France is the most powerful state at their border (and Valois-Burgundy had a rivalry with the main Valois line and Valois-Orléans).
Still Burgundy or at least the Burgundian Netherlands can survive, like Savoy managed to do IOTL.

(*= they may at one point lose the territory of the duchy of Burgundy proper (the French fief) to France)
 
Last edited:
The House of Borgogne-Valois dies off eventually. I love the idea, and have fleshed out several scenarios myself, but I can hardly see the mish-mash of titles that was the 'Duchy of Burgundy' making the transition to a modern state. It either gets inherited by someone else, conquered, or otherwise split up by its larger surrounding powers. If you don't change anything else, Burgundy as-is IOTL is pretty much destined to go away---if not to inheritance in the late 15th century, then to collapse under the weight of Lowlander autonomy/independence movements.

See, i kinda have some issues with the Burgundy is doing too die. Even in Otl, Maxemillian of Habsburg managed to fight off the french in the 1480`s, using an army from the Burgundian lands and financed from the same place. True there were issues with the estates, but these were not unique for the area but rather the norm in Western and central europe as mostly feudal states transformed into early modern ones. Also, look at Charles V, he was raised in Flanders, spent a loth of time there, and knew the area and the language, and it stayed loyal. (Incidentally, this was enough to make Charles being viewed as a german prince, something that helped him become Emperor)
Its only when Phillip II comes to the throne that the issues in the low countries start, and Phillip never or only visited once in his life. Many of the issues Mary and later Maxemilian faced are based on, 1 mary being a woman, and that maxemilian was a foreigner whom wanted to act as regent for his 4 year old son.

A male mary, lets call him Phillip IV, would be 19, raised and educated by the standards of the Burgundian court, in Flanders (Burge/ Burssels) and would speak both Flemish as well as French. Its a very rich area, and the population of the lowcountries alone is about the same as contemporary England.

France is growing stronger, but it is still going to take some time for it to fully reach its potential, the italian penisuale is the same price as otl, and that is going to clash with united Spanish interests even if that throne does not pass to a Habsburg. The Burgundian line might also keep up its ties with England.
 
And if the all the senior Valois lines die off like in OTL, the House of Burgundy, being descended to the younger son of John II, is senior to the House of Bourbon, descended from Louis IX, and the dukes of Burgundy becomes King of France.


Result?

MEGA France.
 
And if the all the senior Valois lines die off like in OTL, the House of Burgundy, being descended to the younger son of John II, is senior to the House of Bourbon, descended from Louis IX, and the dukes of Burgundy becomes King of France.


Result?

MEGA France.

Depends, mind you they just came from the 100 years war over some legalistic matters. There's always the chance that a lord isn't accepted or accepted only nominally with severe restrictions.
 
Depends, mind you they just came from the 100 years war over some legalistic matters. There's always the chance that a lord isn't accepted or accepted only nominally with severe restrictions.

Henry of Navarre in 1589 was accepted after his conversion to Catholicism despite being only very very distantly related to the last king.

In this scenario, whoever is the Duke of Burgundy would be much more closely related to the last Valois king than OTL Henry of Navarre.

Salic Law is very powerful in France in the 16th century. Why do you think Henry IV became king at all if not for Salic Law?
 
And if the all the senior Valois lines die off like in OTL
It would ask for three lines to disappear in a row : Valois-Orléans, Valois-Angoulême, Valois-Anjou were closer (and the still possible newer allohhistorical branches). Valois-Bourgogne possibility to take the crown at this point were meager.

Other than that, I agree with Janprimus : even if Louis XI is still pretty much likely to go for Burgundy proper as well several parts of Burgundian lands in the northern part of the kingdom (Somme is a no-brainer, and he did have the forces and ressources to undergo this), Burgundians are still going to hold their ground at the very least in Netherlands, probably elsewhere as well.

Interestingly, the presence of a strong Burgundian/Netherland principality may make Italian Wars if not delayed, at least less of a focus : IOTL, Valois went for Italy after making sure there was no direct conflict in France proper. I'd think the Burgundian presence may be changing this there (and indirectly, a continued hostility in Spain, for different reasons), making expansionist ambitions in Italy less important and maybe more prone to negociations (Maybe more focus on Savoy and Northern Italy, would it be do keep new conquest closer to other geopolitical focus?)

Henry of Navarre in 1589 was accepted after his conversion to Catholicism despite being only very very distantly related to the last king.
But, and that's an important point, while he was the closer male relative to Henri III, the last king acknowledged him and Henri of Navarre beneficied from the alliance of Protestants, moderates, politiques, etc. factions.
And even there, as you said, he wasn't accepted widely before making several concessions to other houses.

It's not about an automatic succession, playing smoothly, but about political concerns that would, I'd agree, favour the more close relative.

Salic Law is very powerful in France in the 16th century. Why do you think Henry IV became king at all if not for Salic Law?

Salic Law is an improperty. We should mention the Lois Fondamentales du Royaume, whom parts were more or less justified by the old Salic Law that virtually disappeared by the late Middle Ages.
Thing is the lois fondamentales were extremely dependent of the situation : there was no clause of catholicism of the heir before Henri IV had to convert. If the situation turns like there's a political impossibility to make Valois-Bourgogne kings, you'd have new clauses appearing.
 
Henry of Navarre in 1589 was accepted after his conversion to Catholicism despite being only very very distantly related to the last king.

In this scenario, whoever is the Duke of Burgundy would be much more closely related to the last Valois king than OTL Henry of Navarre.

Salic Law is very powerful in France in the 16th century. Why do you think Henry IV became king at all if not for Salic Law?

We can take plenty of other weak monarchs in comparison. The centralized France that was able to mobilize and project its powers had its beginnings in the late stages of the hundred years wars and was a gradual process over 300 years. There were plenty of noble houses that was gradually eroded over time, but they were still substantial during the 15th century when this POD is made. It's by no means a guarantee.
 
It would ask for three lines to disappear in a row : Valois-Orléans, Valois-Angoulême, Valois-Anjou were closer (and the still possible newer allohhistorical branches). Valois-Bourgogne possibility to take the crown at this point were meager.


I agree. Very much agree. Their chance to the throne is meager. But in 1477, the chances of the House of Bourbon coming to the throne 112 years later was even more meager.

Would you agree that the chances of the House of Burgundy becoming King of France if they survived in the male line is greater than the House of Bourbon in this TL?
 
Would you agree that the chances of the House of Burgundy becoming King of France if they survived in the male line is greater than the House of Bourbon in this TL?

Technically? Yes.

But you'd still have to deal with other (historical and allhistorical) lines, and about lois fondamentales du royaume still possible twists (see the edit of my previous post about Salic Law), and of course possible religious problems.

I agree they would have, nevertheless, fair chances to inherit with a sound politic even in an unfavourable situation, if it's what you meant.

(I don't see Netherlands being supremely happy about this, tough)
 
We can take plenty of other weak monarchs in comparison. The centralized France that was able to mobilize and project its powers had its beginnings in the late stages of the hundred years wars and was a gradual process over 300 years. There were plenty of noble houses that was gradually eroded over time, but they were still substantial during the 15th century when this POD is made. It's by no means a guarantee.

I would say that France was able to mobilize and project its power in the reign of Philip II Augustus, way before the Hundred Years War, and the crown, despite all the events of the next centuries, never lost that power.

As to the succession:

After the precedent of 1328, the principle that no woman, and no one deriving his inheritance from a woman, could be king of France. That was shown in the inheritance of Louis XII, and Francis I.

Now if all the senior Valois lines to Burgundy became extinct, would that 100% guarantee that the Dukes of Burgundy becomes king?

No. Certain factors could prevent them from being king.

But they would have a greater chance than anyone else.
 
I agree they would have, nevertheless, fair chances to inherit with a sound politic even in an unfavourable situation, if it's what you meant.

(I don't see Netherlands being supremely happy about this, tough)

Wouldn't the Dutch see them as gaining France (no matter how erroneous that view is)? I think they would have the same reaction as the Scots did when James VI became James I. Whoever became duke would bring a lot of Dutch followers to Paris and reward them with patronage, titles, etc, like James VI when he became king of England brought Scots to London.
 
Wouldn't the Dutch see them as gaining France (no matter how erroneous that view is)?
I don't think so : Netherland cities elites were at least a minimum politically-aware, and being lumped together with a demographical/political/military superpower wouldn't appeal to them, as it didn't with Spanish Hasbourgs.

You might see a situation à la Charles Quint, where the king know what he can does, and what he can't in this region : but eventually, French interests will prevail and it would be contradictory to Netherlands'.

As you said you had a trend of unification (although I'd disagree it was a straight line since Philippe II, it was far more contextual and with several drawbacks), and I don't think kings of France, whatever their origin, are going to just forget about Netherlands.
 
I would say that France was able to mobilize and project its power in the reign of Philip II Augustus, way before the Hundred Years War, and the crown, despite all the events of the next centuries, never lost that power.

The very existence of Burgundy would contest the claim of centralized power during the Hundred Years War, nobles such as the house of Foix switched sides numerous times during the course of the war, the control wasn't consistently powerful. But in the end the degree of centralization is something that we can at best only guess at.


True, I just didn't like the absolutist feeling I got from the original post:

 
The very existence of Burgundy would contest the claim of centralized power during the Hundred Years War, nobles such as the house of Foix switched sides numerous times during the course of the war, the control wasn't consistently powerful. But in the end the degree of centralization is something that we can at best only guess at.



True, I just didn't like the absolutist feeling I got from the original post:

You only have to compare the power of the Kings before Philip II, when they only held Ile de France, and after. No king after Philip II sank so low that they only had direct power over Ile de France and not much else. After Philip II, the kings could mostly have their power felt over most of France, from Languedoc, to Normany, etc.

Did it fluctuate? Sure it did. But it never lost that power it gained during the 13th century. It was still more powerful within France than any single noble, and that includes the Duke of Burgundy during the 15th century.
 
Top