WI Charles IX has a son

On the Surviving Valois thread, the best PoD for the Valois to survive if Charles IX had a son. What effects would this have on France and the world? Would the Catholics win the Wars of Religion? What if?
 
On the Surviving Valois thread, the best PoD for the Valois to survive if Charles IX had a son. What effects would this have on France and the world? Would the Catholics win the Wars of Religion? What if?

Well first off thats very vague. We can easily have his daughter Marie Elisabeth be born a boy, and healthier which is necessary since she died at age six. But does Charles IX die on schedule? Does he live longer? If he dies on schedule then his son, I assume he would be a Charles, Francois or Henri, would become King of France. Then we would have a two-year-old King, an earlier version of the Regencies of Louis XIV and XV. Now we can easily guess that the baby King's Regent would be his grandmother, the indomitable Catherine de' Medici. Now it would be interesting to see if a sort of power struggle would develop between Catherine and the King's mother, Elisabeth of Austria. Then we would have to see how this would affect the Wars of Religion. For one, there wouldn't be any wars to keep Henri of Navarre from the throne. Second, the Catholics DID win the Wars of Religion. France remained Catholic, the Huguenots political rights would be revoked within 20 plus years of the Edict of Nantes being issued.

Then there's the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where Charles IX's brother Henri, Duc de Anjou was serving as King. If his doesn't ascend to the throne, what does Henri do? Will he actually try to be a good monarch for Poland or will he still flee back to France?
 
Wars of Religions in France weren't really on a strict theological struggle.
To resume it simply, each side was composed by different factions that struggled against opposite side but also against each other.

That said, it's more than probable that a lasting Valois house would meant the continuation of their OTL policy : appeasment between Catholics and Protestant when possible, alternating support of different factions in order to prevent both the desintegration of the state and the threat posed by a too powerful house against the french throne.

Basically, the "politique" or "moyenneur" line. Interestingly, the absence of the fight between Bourbon and Ligue for the throne that managed at least to simplify things and to make "politiques" join Henri of Navarre could mean lasting political troubles in France, as the supporters of the royal "mid-way" would be still isolated between Protestants and Catholic factions.

So, possibly a weakest France in the end of XVII century, and maybe even unable to really intervene in Germany later. Furthermore, unless Valois manage to subdue Bourbon holdings, they will still have to deal with an important protestant prince in their kingdoms.
A lasting War of Religion in France would certainly mean a more important foreign participation : without saying that it would be an ATL Thirty War, spanish intervention is likely to happen like OTL, and at least as much as importantly.

Eventually, they would have a difficult choice : or searching a Ligue support with all the damage it could to do their power even temporarly (aka rise of Parlement and great houses like the Guise) or to try to bear their proper interests in first place and to risk being isolated.

If Valois manage to stand with this last policy, they'll likely be harsher on great nobles and if some as Bourbon or Guise didn't lost their estates yet, a confiscation of these like it heppened for Charles III of Bouron is to happen.
 
Now we can easily guess that the baby King's Regent would be his grandmother, the indomitable Catherine de' Medici.
Don't be so sure, the Parlement of Paris (with the support of many pronvincial ones) had an important Ligue stand and if Catherine de Medicis continued the policy she followed OTL of "third-way" and appeasment between faction, great catholic nobles supported by the population and Parliment could likely prefer a regency by a clear Catholic regent as Elisabeth of Austria.
Now, Catherine de Medicis was indeed skilled, and not that easily challenged. Still, the situation was complex, and you'll have likely political infighting.

For one, there wouldn't be any wars to keep Henri of Navarre from the throne.
He was still one of the greatest nobles in France, with one of the largest holdings. As chief of the Protestant faction, and as a important prince, he was still to deal with whatever by a ligue or "politique" regency/monarch.
By a war, by treaty, by confiscation...Still to be seen how, but it would be eventually.

Second, the Catholics DID win the Wars of Religion. France remained Catholic, the Huguenots political rights would be revoked within 20 plus years of the Edict of Nantes being issued.
No, they didn't.
The faction that ended by win the war was "politiques" or "moyenneurs". Basicallt they favoured the appeasment between factions (while they were ready to make concession favouring one at the expenses of others to keep balance or if they gained something at medium range).
They managed to use Protestants factions thanks to their leader becoming de jure king and to fight the common ennemy : the Ligue/Ultra-catholic and foreign allies.

"Political rights"? You seem to use an anachronic conception here. Edict of Nantes allowed Protestant to have basically autonomous enclaves within the kingdom. As said, the "politiques" were ready to make temporary concession if they gained something (here support of Protestant nobles).
Once the need obsolete, and seeing the great love of french kings for anything that limited their authority within their kingdom, it was only a matter of time before an "Edict of Ales" was enacted.

Then there's the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where Charles IX's brother Henri, Duc de Anjou was serving as King. If his doesn't ascend to the throne, what does Henri do? Will he actually try to be a good monarch for Poland or will he still flee back to France?
I don't think he will remain in Poland anyhow. The limitation of its power there and the huge difference it made with Valois conception of royal power (centralisation, fight against nobility power, etc.) were to clash sooner or later.
Admittedly he could remain king, but except for a lasting alliance with Poland, it wouldn't make great changes.
 
Don't be so sure, the Parlement of Paris (with the support of many pronvincial ones) had an important Ligue stand and if Catherine de Medicis continued the policy she followed OTL of "third-way" and appeasment between faction, great catholic nobles supported by the population and Parliment could likely prefer a regency by a clear Catholic regent as Elisabeth of Austria.
Now, Catherine de Medicis was indeed skilled, and not that easily challenged. Still, the situation was complex, and you'll have likely political infighting.


He was still one of the greatest nobles in France, with one of the largest holdings. As chief of the Protestant faction, and as a important prince, he was still to deal with whatever by a ligue or "politique" regency/monarch.
By a war, by treaty, by confiscation...Still to be seen how, but it would be eventually.


No, they didn't.
The faction that ended by win the war was "politiques" or "moyenneurs". Basicallt they favoured the appeasment between factions (while they were ready to make concession favouring one at the expenses of others to keep balance or if they gained something at medium range).
They managed to use Protestants factions thanks to their leader becoming de jure king and to fight the common ennemy : the Ligue/Ultra-catholic and foreign allies.

"Political rights"? You seem to use an anachronic conception here. Edict of Nantes allowed Protestant to have basically autonomous enclaves within the kingdom. As said, the "politiques" were ready to make temporary concession if they gained something (here support of Protestant nobles).
Once the need obsolete, and seeing the great love of french kings for anything that limited their authority within their kingdom, it was only a matter of time before an "Edict of Ales" was enacted.


I don't think he will remain in Poland anyhow. The limitation of its power there and the huge difference it made with Valois conception of royal power (centralisation, fight against nobility power, etc.) were to clash sooner or later.
Admittedly he could remain king, but except for a lasting alliance with Poland, it wouldn't make great changes.

OK you are WAY overestimating the power of the Parlement de Paris. It may have saw itself as the Premiere Parlement but it can be overruled. Look at the early declaration of majority for Charles IX. Paris wouldn't register it so Catherine had it done by the Parlement de Normandie. So the Parlements can prefer whoever they want for the Regency, without the backing of the powerful nobles, like the Guises or the Montmorencys or the Princes of the Blood Elisabeth would NEVER become Regent.And besides, in a battle between the most powerful woman in France vs a 20 year old political novice, who do you honestly think would win?

I'm not sure I get this part. I mean yes Henri of Navarre had vast estates in France, was technically Primer Prince of the Blood and was the leader of the Huguenots but he wouldn't be the Heir to France. Without the fear of a Protestant on the French throne, some of the problems would be mitigated right off the bat. He would still be powerful but part of the Ultra-Catholic response wouldn't be as strong without the threat of a Protestant King of France.

In my opinion the DID. Think about it. Did France go Protestant? No. Did France have a Protestant King? No, well technically yes but he had to convert to Protestantism. Did the rights granted to the Huguenots last? No. So the Catholics might not have won in the military sense, or achieved all their goals, but they did win in the fact that the Huguenots eventually lost all political and Military power, and were eventually banished from France altogether.

But yeah I can't see a big change in Poland, though Henri might have to stay longer. I can't imagine the French Court would be thrilled to have Henri return for no reason after shelling out God knows how much to win him the Polish Throne. Though if he does stay and marries someone other than Anna Jagiellon, then there's the possibility that we could see a Polish Valois Dynasty.

As for the future of France, I think it depends on what type of King Charles' son is. If he's a Louis XIV, Francois I or Henri II, then France's future looks bright. But if he's like his father or uncles, or to a lesser extent Louis XVI, then France is in trouble.
 
OK you are WAY overestimating the power of the Parlement de Paris. It may have saw itself as the Premiere Parlement but it can be overruled.
Beg your pardon, but I think you don't have a clear view on the situation in Paris duing the Wars of Religion. The Parliment had a potential power quite important, and if it was shut down during periods of strong royal power, it was a quite powerful institution in periods such as troubled regency.

And it was not about "seeing itself as the First Parliment". It was seen such by population, others Parliments, and judicial elite.
Before Henri IV created ex nihiilo a rival Parliment in Tours, it had a decisive influential power among the population of northern France that saw it as its representative.
By exemple, the Paris Parliment was trusted to secure and rule Paris in the absence of the king at times during the XVII century.
If generally obedient, while reluctantly, it's certain that if the sucession goes wrong at some point and seeing how much Paris is of a Guise stronghold, the Parliment could gain power (whilst under Guise/Ligue influence as OTL when it refused to consider Henri IV as king and choose Charles de Bourbon instead).

So yes, I stand my point, a troubled situation as a regency for Charles IX's son could lead to a Catholic (not religiously, but politically Catholic, you got the point) Parliment to challenge Catherine de Medicis regency and could lead to prefer a novice. Hell, for Guise and Catholics parlementaries, a catholic novice could be even better as it would gave more room for expanding their power rather than a skilled and experienced "Politique".

Never said it was the most realistic, though: as you said the OP is vague. But in the worst of case for Valois (apart, of course, being extinct) it's a real danger. I don't think that a generalisation of instituions like the "Provinces de l'Union" as they existed in Languedoc (while not widely accepted there) is totally unrealistic.

A better situation, with Valois willing to make concession with parlementarians in order to prevent a too great Guise influence would be to agree more or less partially with the point of view of Parliment regarding its institutional role (aka a permanent royal council and the "constituionalisation" of its rights that were largelly informals).

I'm not sure I get this part. I mean yes Henri of Navarre had vast estates in France, was technically Primer Prince of the Blood and was the leader of the Huguenots but he wouldn't be the Heir to France.
-Bourbon-ALbret were powerful princes, with large holdings that were basically autonomous.
- The policy of french kings was to limit the power of the great houses within their kingdom.
- The fact Henri of Navarre didn't join forces with "politiques" like it did OTL and remained the leader of an opposite faction from the royal one makes him a threat.
- Valois could want to both "sacrifice" him to Catholics and to get rid of an important prince, like they did by confiscating Charles de Bourbon Estates : no matter the pretext, they'll find one.

He would still be powerful but part of the Ultra-Catholic response wouldn't be as strong without the threat of a Protestant King of France.
It will be the same. Without the threat that representated the cheif of the Protestant faction becoming the legitime king of France, they'll have more room to get rid of him in a legal way, and to make a (temporary) alliance with Politiques on the base seen up there.

In my opinion the DID
In common opinion of historians, they didn't.
Again, Catholic were mainly Ligue and other little factions with a clear program : get rid of Protestant politically and religiously, have the king of France following a pro-Hapsburg and pro-Catholic foreign policy, restrain the royal power at the benefit of great house and local (including parlementary) ones.

Not one of this was reached. I'll repet myself but Wars of Religion became soon less and less about theology and strict religious policies but about the political struggle of great houses and local powers against royal one, an usual conflict in France up to Louis XIV.
Saying it was Catholics vs. Protestants, critically representating them as solid and united faction is wrong.

Again, the clear victor of the Wars of Religion was the "politique" side.

Think about it. Did France go Protestant? No. Did France have a Protestant King?
Wars of Religion were more about a power struggle to decide who will be the most influential faction in the court : Guise, Montmorency, Bourbon, Valois themselves...
Basically (really basically) the Catholics were the faction of Great Houses and populars classes, Protestants of the gentry and some urban bourgeoisie, Politiques balancing from each, depending on their focus.

I'm not saying religion didn't played a great role (it's the Wars of Religion for some reason after all) but the political part of these had others roots.

The Protestant faction didn't had the conversion of the kingdom as objective to the war (Admittedly, it was an ideal objective, but certainly not immediate.). It was maybe what Catholic then Ligue said, but it was total BS.
Their motivations were more to keep Protestantism dominant where it was present (by exemple, refusing the reconstruction of Catholic clergy and buildings where they were destroyed or deserted, something that was refused in the Edict of Nantes), to create a stable Protestant faction within the court to protect their interests. Finally to create "a state within the state".

Did the rights granted to the Huguenots last?
Again, the prescripton of Edicts of Beaulieu and Nantes weren't about giving "rights" to Protestants as individuals.
Not only they didn't fulfilled all the objectives of the Protestants.
By exemple, it doesn't allow freedom of religion, but freedom of conscience.
Basically, you're allowed to belive whatever you want, but you have religious rights only in precise places (in said places, contrary to Protestant wishes, Catholic religion was authorized to be re-established) and forbidden elsewhere.
Finally it limited the religious and political autonomy of Protestants in sort of "reservations" where they had to share power.
The conditions themselves were made in order to satisfy each faction and to make them recognize Henri IV and Politiques rise.

and were eventually banished from France altogether.
No. Not even by exageration.
See, some Protestant indeed exiled themselves while it was forbidden by the royal edict. They were supposed to stand in France, and exile was outlawed.
To resume : banishment was the contrary of what Louis XIV intended.

See the article 12 of the Edict of Fontaineblau for more precisions.

And the departure of french Protestant was finally limitated : at worst 100 000 (essentially in North and East parts) aka 1/2 of the exiled Protestant during the Wars or Religion.
The crushing majority of Protestants remained in France, mostly as crypto-protestants or as rebels.
Finally, even before the death of Louis XIV, the persecutions began to slow and it's realist to say (according contemporary sources at least) that the Protestant cult began to be restaured semi-clandestinly (while it stopped almost totally or turned to eschatological turmoil) in the 1730's

Nevertheless, as the Wars of Religion ended with Edict of Nantes, in 1589, talking about Louis XIV policies one century later to talk about the results of the former doesn't make great sense : it would be like saying France won war of 1871 because it eventually took back Alsace-Moselle in 1945.

As for the future of France, I think it depends on what type of King Charles' son is. If he's a Louis XIV, Francois I or Henri II, then France's future looks bright. But if he's like his father or uncles, or to a lesser extent Louis XVI, then France is in trouble.
A Louis XIV with a country divided in rival factions having in common the refusal of a strong royalty isn't going to go that far.
That said, Valois were particularly despised in french historiography up to nowadays, partially thanks to Bourbon propaganda, but they were fairly able kings : Charles IX, Henri III by exemple did a great part of the job that allowed Henri IV to rule efficiently.
They had hard times tough, and Charles IX son is going to, as well.
 
Last edited:
I don't think he will remain in Poland anyhow. The limitation of its power there and the huge difference it made with Valois conception of royal power (centralisation, fight against nobility power, etc.) were to clash sooner or later.
Admittedly he could remain king, but except for a lasting alliance with Poland, it wouldn't make great changes.

I'm not so sure about that. Stephen Bathory was a quite competent king in Poland. I don't think that Henry would have the same success as him. In the other hand, he might well leave Poland to become the regent for the young king.
 
I'm not so sure about that. Stephen Bathory was a quite competent king in Poland. I don't think that Henry would have the same success as him. In the other hand, he might well leave Poland to become the regent for the young king.

I don't judge Bathory reign : my point was mostly the royal power and the nobility power balance was simply too far from what Henri was used to and would have want to reach (his OTL reign in France was a clear "politique" one, searching strengthening of royal power at the expense of factionals ones).
That said, I don't know enough of Polish history to make a definitive stance : do you think Henri could have increased his power as king of Poland? How the possible struggle with polish nobility would have went?

For regence, I don't really think so. As Emperor Constantine said, Catherine of Medicis was particularly experienced, skilled with supporters amongst the french nobility. The perpetuation of Polish alliance against the Austria House was quite important in its foreign diplomacy and if Henri would have left Poland, she would have him sent back quite quickly.
And in the case of Catherine not being named regent, I don't think Henri would have a chance for himself.
 
Allow me to largely agree with LSCatalina here--about the only difference I have is I think that you can't discount the religious aspect of the Wars of Religion--the Huguenot/Catholic matter was not merely widow-dressing for dynastic and political struggles but an important part of them, intriniscily-linked with the philosophies of the various factions. It's just a bit difficult for us to get because--well, the past really is a foreign country.

As for the outcome of the wars, I'd sum it up as follows...

The Catholic League lost, the Huguenots won in the short term, and lost in the long term, making the only real victors the House of Bourbon.
 
Allow me to largely agree with LSCatalina here--about the only difference I have is I think that you can't discount the religious aspect of the Wars of Religion--the Huguenot/Catholic matter was not merely widow-dressing for dynastic and political struggles but an important part of them, intriniscily-linked with the philosophies of the various factions. It's just a bit difficult for us to get because--well, the past really is a foreign country.

As for the outcome of the wars, I'd sum it up as follows...

The Catholic League lost, the Huguenots won in the short term, and lost in the long term, making the only real victors the House of Bourbon.

Could the House of Valois end up being the Victors if the dynasty continued?
 
Could the House of Valois end up being the Victors if the dynasty continued?

Yes, the benefitted of the legitimacy of power. Even Guise had to pretend serve the king's interests, and they won't be easy to remove.
Besides, if they manage to do what Henri III did : aka getting rid of Guise, searching appeasment with Protestants (with the Edict of Beaulieu, that is in many aspects, the same than Edict of Nantes), they will have more room.

Of course, Henri IV's war had a positive consequence as it forced nobles to choose a side : for or against him.
Lasting Valois, if they keep their OTL policy, would have to deal with Protestants, Guise/Ligue, Malcontents...and to continually balance.

By exemple, the Edict of Beaulieu gave quite many concession to Malcontents that were eventually nullified because of the participation of some of them against Henri IV. If applied, it would give more room to the ones asking for a more important participation of nobles and Parliments in the government of the kingdom.

That's actually all the point of the thread : depending the situation they'll face, which concessions they will be forced to do temporarly or more lasting, to which faction, if they able to split their ennemies or to do a more decisive war...
They had good odds to end being victors, but I would think it would maybe take more time, less because of their capacities than that the OTL situation forced a decisive resolution.
Frankly, when you get rid of the "légende noire" of Valois, you can see they were quite skilled with a coherent policy whom Henri IV would eventually recieve the results (with some work of his own, obviously)
 
That said, I don't know enough of Polish history to make a definitive stance : do you think Henri could have increased his power as king of Poland? How the possible struggle with polish nobility would have went?

I don't know enough either, but it seems that he hated the place and had several clashes with the nobility due to their power being much stronger than in France. We could ask some of the Polish members here in the forum, but I think he would be a powerless king (even more than Bathory or Sigismund Vasa were) with no much political strenght to impose his views.
 
Yes, the benefitted of the legitimacy of power. Even Guise had to pretend serve the king's interests, and they won't be easy to remove.
Besides, if they manage to do what Henri III did : aka getting rid of Guise, searching appeasment with Protestants (with the Edict of Beaulieu, that is in many aspects, the same than Edict of Nantes), they will have more room.

You know I'm going to have to differ with you again--Henri III's aims may have understandable, and he doubtless had his sympathetic side, but the man was a disaster as a king, despite revisionist efforts to restore his reputation. There's a reason both sides viewed him as a traitorous bastard during the war.

Let's consider one of Henri III's policy "victories" you list here--getting rid of the Guises. Henri did this by inviting Duke Henri and his brother Cardinal Louis to a meeting, then having his bodyguard murder the duke. Cardinal Louis was supposed to be let go, but he refused to swear a vow of loyalty to the King, and so he had to get killed too.

Now, some of you are doubtless thinking this doesn't sound particularly clever--Henri de Guise certainly didn't, as he agreed to the meeting in the first place because he thought Henri III would understand how dangerous killing him would be. But Henri and his mother Catherine both thought this was an ingenious plan, right up until they had to flee Paris because the Duke's supporters started calling for their blood.

That whole affair is Henri III in a nutshell.

Frankly, when you get rid of the "légende noire" of Valois, you can see they were quite skilled with a coherent policy whom Henri IV would eventually recieve the results (with some work of his own, obviously)

Again, no they weren't. I hereby declare the law of Charles I--if your reform efforts are starting a civil war, they aren't working. It doesn't matter how nice they sound on paper--if you've got opponents forming an army that forces you to flee your capital, then it's time to admit you have a bigger problem than you do when things started.
 
You know I'm going to have to differ with you again--Henri III's aims may have understandable, and he doubtless had his sympathetic side, but the man was a disaster as a king, despite revisionist efforts to restore his reputation. There's a reason both sides viewed him as a traitorous bastard during the war.

Let's consider one of Henri III's policy "victories" you list here--getting rid of the Guises. Henri did this by inviting Duke Henri and his brother Cardinal Louis to a meeting, then having his bodyguard murder the duke. Cardinal Louis was supposed to be let go, but he refused to swear a vow of loyalty to the King, and so he had to get killed too.

Now, some of you are doubtless thinking this doesn't sound particularly clever--Henri de Guise certainly didn't, as he agreed to the meeting in the first place because he thought Henri III would understand how dangerous killing him would be. But Henri and his mother Catherine both thought this was an ingenious plan, right up until they had to flee Paris because the Duke's supporters started calling for their blood.

That whole affair is Henri III in a nutshell.
That takes an especially distressing kind of stupid. The smart(er) stupid bastard would have framed Guise for something and had him executed. The really smart bastard would find some way to make him useful to his purposes.

This? This is a case study in how not to deal with the upper nobility. If this continues in the Valois, "the legitimacy of power" is not going to save them for very long.
 
Last edited:
That takes an especially distressing kind of stupid. The smart(er) stupid bastard would have framed Guise for something and had him executed. The really smart bastard would find some way to make him useful to his purposes.

This? This is a case study in how not to deal with the upper nobility. If that was typical Henri, and his son does the same, "the legitimacy of power" is not going to save them for very long.

Oh, he did have exactly that justification--Guise was leading the Catholic League, which had just had seized control of Paris, and now wanted the King to pass all sort of government reforms they had in mind. Thus, Henri III claimed he was a traitor, and so had to go.

Unfortunately, the 'seized control of Paris' part interfered with his plans.
 
Oh, he did have exactly that justification--Guise was leading the Catholic League, which had just had seized control of Paris, and now wanted the King to pass all sort of government reforms they had in mind. Thus, Henri III claimed he was a traitor, and so had to go.

Unfortunately, the 'seized control of Paris' part interfered with his plans.

But justified is rather useless if the action is stupid.
 
There's a reason both sides viewed him as a traitorous bastard during the war.
The same reason both sides saw Henri IV as a traitorous bastard himself : he followed his own interests and didn't wanted to be the toy of rival factions.
It was called effeminate, unskilled, decadant by Bourbons that wanted to legitimize their accession by dirtying previous dynasty (as usual, in this sort of case).
Revisionist? When it was introduced (and Pierre Champion's works aren't that recent, really), yes, but now it's clearly the consensual view by historians.
Maybe you can advise a recent work about it, cause really, calling him a disaster is something in contradiction with I saw so far in studies about his reign?

Henri de Guise certainly didn't, as he agreed to the meeting in the first place because he thought Henri III would understand how dangerous killing him would be.
It's less about that than Guise being at the peak of its power, thinking having put the Valois "dans sa poche" and maybe preparing to overthrown Vallois (you know the famous word of his father "To the King of France!"). The Etats Généraux were clearly on his favour and everything showed that Ligue was going to have a decisive victory.
Clearly he didn't tought Henri III could risk his position by cutting the Ligue's head while the king just passed the Edict of Union (basically, an alliance with the Ligue, in order to make them more confident)

But Henri and his mother Catherine both thought this was an ingenious plan, right up until they had to flee Paris because the Duke's supporters started calling for their blood.
I don't think they tought it was "ingenious plan" or they would have done it earlier. They did it because they had no other choice if they wanted to keep chances to regain the power the Ligue had and possibly to keep themselves on throne.
Again, Henri de Guise accumulated an HUGE power : leader of the most powerful faction in the kingdom, "lieutenant-général" (basically real commander-in-chief in the name of the king), unofficial claimant of the throne, favoured guy in the Etats Généraux...
No clearly, the assassination was unavoidable at this point if the Valois and the "politiques" wanted to stay...well, a thing.

Furthermore Henri III already left Paris two times before for province, and knew it would probably happen again : at least it didn't let the most powerful noble of France (including before him) with the keys of the throne room.

That whole affair is Henri III in a nutshell.
Nutshell? Maybe, the whole situation was quite hard. Still, the Valois notably stand with a policy where royal power had to be victorious and not being subdued to another faction.
They would have a better time if they allied with the League, or even Protestants and not enforcing their own interests.


Again, no they weren't. I hereby declare the law of Charles I--if your reform efforts are starting a civil war, they aren't working.
I respectfully disagree. Henri III didn't started a civil war or the Wars of Religion : it existed since years, with League faction becoming ready to overthrow him in all but name (and even that isn't certain). All his efforts were about ending it with royal power intact as did his deceased brothers, in a clear continuity.

To quote a historian (from memory) : The assassination of Guise was one of the most crucial moments in History of France.
While the victory of League would have clearly made the France a more or less sattelite state of Spain, putting the royal power at the hand of factional great house...
If we have to compare Henri III to Charles I, it's clearly to see he managed to get the opposite eventually : reinforcement of royal power, crushing of nobility and parelementary opposition.
 
Top