WI Charles IV of France has a posthumus son?

In 1 February 1328 King Charles IV died suddenly... As he was without a male heir the heir presumptive was Philipe de Valois the late King's first cousin...
However at the time of Charles's death Queen Jeanne d'Evreux was pregnant and Philipe de Valois was appointed Regent till the birth...
Eventually the baby turned out to be a girl and Philipe de Valois was crowned King Philipe VI of France...
WI Jeanne gives birth to a boy (lets name him Charles) instead of a girl? Philipe would continue as a regent? Or he would be replaced by someone else? Would the birth of a posthumus son to Charles IV barred Edward's III plans to claim the french crown?
 
In 1 February 1328 King Charles IV died suddenly... As he was without a male heir the heir presumptive was Philipe de Valois the late King's first cousin...
However at the time of Charles's death Queen Jeanne d'Evreux was pregnant and Philipe de Valois was appointed Regent till the birth...
Eventually the baby turned out to be a girl and Philipe de Valois was crowned King Philipe VI of France...
WI Jeanne gives birth to a boy (lets name him Charles) instead of a girl? Philipe would continue as a regent? Or he would be replaced by someone else? Would the birth of a posthumus son to Charles IV barred Edward's III plans to claim the french crown?


Presumably he stays regent, no reason to change comes to mind.

And yes, it blocks Edward's claim. Might still be an Anglo-French war, but it wouldn't be over the succession.
 
Presumably he stays regent, no reason to change comes to mind.

And yes, it blocks Edward's claim. Might still be an Anglo-French war, but it wouldn't be over the succession.

Philip could stay regent unless nasty rumours are starting to spread about him... After all there was the Jean I precedent 12 years ago... Maybe Jeanne d'Evreux would feel more secure if Philip was removed from court...
 
If Jeanne d'Evreux gave birth to a son rather than a daughter, then Edward III would have no reason to claim the French throne: he is only a nephew of Charles IV through his sister. The posthumous son of Charles IV* has more rights and would be backed by the French nobility.

The Regency would probably be handled by Philippe de Valois since he was already regent at the time of Charles IV's death. It's possible that other people will try to claim the Regency though, but my opinion is that Philippe de Valois would stay Regent at least until the fourteenth or fifteenth birthday (The French King's majority at the time) of Charles IV's son.

*On the name of the son: Charles is a likely possibility as it's the name of the father. Other possibilities include Louis and Philippe, two names that were pretty popular among the Direct Capetians. Another possibility would be Robert, but it was generally given to younger sons and not older ones.
 
johnjcakos said:
The question is: would Philippe de Valois be as disastrous a regent as he was a King in OTL?

Philippe could probably still be a disastrous regent. However, in my opinion, he would be less of a nuisance as a Regent that as a King like he was OTL. After all, he will have no quarrel with Edward III over the French succession: we might still have a conflict up in Guyenne, but I doubt it would reach the scale of the Hundread Years' War.
Furthermore, a Regent's reign ends with the coming of age of the King: thus, Philippe de Valois would leave power when Charles IV's son turns 14/15. After that, he will probably kept a huge influence at court because he remains heir of his cousin via Salic Law until the latter fathers a son and he is also the most powerful French noble of the time. However, there will probably at least one other faction at court fighting Philippe de Valois's influence. We also have to take into account the personnality of Charles IV's son: if he turns out as a strong King, then Philippe de Valois will probably not have a word to say.

On a side note, I failed to mention something: if Charles IV were to leave a son, it's quite likely the son would be King of Navarra. Of course, you would have people arguing about the fact Joan of Navarra, daughter of Louis X, should be the legitimate queen of Navarra since there is no Salic Law in Navarra. However, when they got the French throne, both Philippe V and Charles IV of France also claimed the Navarese crown: it's thus likely Charles IV's son would get Navarra unless there are negotiations to give it to Joan of Navarra like OTL.
 
Top