WI: Charles Orlando lives?

What if Charles Orlando the eldest son and heir of Charles VIII of France and Anne of Brittany had not died in 1495? Charles VIII died in 1498 so Charles Orlando would only be 5-6. Who would be named regent Anne or maybe Louis of Orleans Charles VIII's sucessor OTL? How would this effect Europe at large. I imagine there would be no Second Italian War because the whole basis of that war was for Otl Louis XII (of Orleans) to press his personal claim to the Duchy of Milan.
 
Who would be named regent Anne or maybe Louis of Orleans Charles VIII's sucessor OTL?
Probably Louis d'Orléans (with the support of Anne de Beaujeu). Anne as a regent would be seen too suspicously to be really credible for French nobles.

It's even possible that a similar marriage as IOTL would be forced on Anne, would it be only to keep Brittany under Valois scrutiny (and to reinforce the regency, preventing a new Mad War equivalent), even if it's not bound to.

Eventually another Estates General gathering could be called to institutionalize this.

I imagine there would be no Second Italian War because the whole basis of that war was for Otl Louis XII (of Orleans) to press his personal claim to the Duchy of Milan.
Except that Napolitain claims would still be held, even assuming that Charles VIII (that could as well survive ITTL, not doomed do die in 1498) or whoever takes the regency (which could be Louis d'Orléans, as main noble and heir of Charles Orland that was still susceptible to die in infancy) doesn't favour Louis' claim on Milan in order to make Valois progression and gold on Italy easier.

How would this effect Europe at large.
*Charles IX would be really too young to hope matter at first, even for diplomatic/matrimonial prospects. I wouldn't see much differences for the uncoming decade and half, while maybe lasting focus on Naples compared to IOTL, possibly trough court opposition to Louis d'Orléans.

By the time of the IOTL Third Italian War, though, he could make a change (maybe more focused on Naples than helping his relative, although it would still be likely to have a support for Valois-Orléans claims would it be only because Valois could inherit them)
 
Probably Louis d'Orléans (with the support of Anne de Beaujeu). Anne as a regent would be seen too suspicously to be really credible for French nobles.

It's even possible that a similar marriage as IOTL would be forced on Anne, would it be only to keep Brittany under Valois scrutiny (and to reinforce the regency, preventing a new Mad War equivalent), even if it's not bound to.

Eventually another Estates General gathering could be called to institutionalize this.


Except that Napolitain claims would still be held, even assuming that Charles VIII (that could as well survive ITTL, not doomed do die in 1498) or whoever takes the regency (which could be Louis d'Orléans, as main noble and heir of Charles Orland that was still susceptible to die in infancy) doesn't favour Louis' claim on Milan in order to make Valois progression and gold on Italy easier.


*Charles IX would be really too young to hope matter at first, even for diplomatic/matrimonial prospects. I wouldn't see much differences for the uncoming decade and half, while maybe lasting focus on Naples compared to IOTL, possibly trough court opposition to Louis d'Orléans.

By the time of the IOTL Third Italian War, though, he could make a change (maybe more focused on Naples than helping his relative, although it would still be likely to have a support for Valois-Orléans claims would it be only because Valois could inherit them)

I wouldn't count Anne de Bretagne out so soon. Queen Mothers had a special place in French tradition and tended to have strong claims to the regency. However, I think your forgetting a key player: Anne, Duchesse de Bourbon. She had acted as regent for her brother before his marriage and I believe as Regent during the First Italian war. She would have a strong claim as well. Chances are we'd see some sort of triumvirate between the Queen Mother, Anne and the Duc d'Orléans.

As for remarriage, I doubt it. Remember Queens of France didn't remarry, not if they didn't have to. Here Anne wouldn't need to remarry as she already has an heir in her son Charles IX. Not to mention that it could weaken Charles's claims to Brittany if he has half brothers.

As to Italy, I doubt there would be any further attempt during the regency. Its very rare to see foreign wars during a King's minority. On the other hand, I wonder if we could see an Orléans expedition against Milan, funded and led by Louis instead of by the Kingdom of France. It would be similar to the d'Anjou invasion of Sicily in the 1200s. It might be more successful, installing a French dynasty rather than the French King conquering parts of Italy.

Finally, its impossible to know what Charles IX would do once he comes of age. I can see his mother and aunt being against further Italian expeditions and discouraging them in their young Sovereign. He could just as easily turn his attention towards the low countries, were France had feudal claims to overlordships of Flanders and other lands. Its impossible to tell.
 
I wouldn't count Anne de Bretagne out so soon. Queen Mothers had a special place in French tradition and tended to have strong claims to the regency.
Indeed, but they as well tend to not have holdings on their own, critically as strategical as Brittany. Neither Valois, Valois-Orléans and their clientele are going to be much comfortable with a "landed" regency (too many bad souvenirs from when it happened earlier).

Giving *Charles XI would be really young and, let's face it, still likely to die before being sacred, Louis d'Orléans (as his immediate heir) would likely have major support from Valois and their court.
You'd argue that Louis was as well landed, but Orléans was really less autonomous than Brittany at this point, and mostly was about fiscal revenues than political/strategical importance.

However, I think your forgetting a key player: Anne, Duchesse de Bourbon.
...She's the second person I mentioned in the post you just quoted, right after Louis d'Orléans...

She would have a strong claim as well. Chances are we'd see some sort of triumvirate between the Queen Mother, Anne and the Duc d'Orléans.
I think that (and as you said) Anne de Bretagne possibility of being regent would make her more likely to support Louis d'Orléans this time : would it be only because he was far more close to Valois' interests, was still likely to inherit and by sheer defiance against Anne de Bretagne (as she proven IOTL).

As for remarriage, I doubt it.

Remember Queens of France didn't remarry, not if they didn't have to.
Anne de Kiev, that married Raoul de Vexin, without any kind of pressure, would like to say a word about this.
Or Mary Stuart, for that matter.

(And of course Anne de Bretagne, that wasn't exactly forced ton managing to get a better deal with Louis)

This "rule" is painfully absent from any I could went into, except non-contemporary statement often attributed to Blanche de Navarre (but only only, as every scenic history, persons concerned often vary) "Queens of France doesn't remarry" that isn't a statement about a rule, but about her own opinion.

Queen of France didn't easily remarried because they often outlived their husbands while being out of mariage date (or because they found that marrying would have made their regency/influence on regence harder).

Would it be only, as said above, to keep Brittany close to Valois interests, and maybe promising her part of the power in the Regency, a remarriage seems quite possible.

Here Anne wouldn't need to remarry as she already has an heir in her son Charles IX.
You mean a really young son, that is still likely to die in infancy? Honestly, I saw better odds than that, for a stable succession.

Not to mention that it could weaken Charles's claims to Brittany if he has half brothers.
Possibly, but nothing said that Charles HAD to get Brittany no matter what. Giving away a title for a younger Valois isn't exactly unheard of.
The main opposition would be rather, and it's a really valid one, that half-brothers of Charles IX being too close of the throne (which is why I don't think it's bound to happen)

But there, I doubt Anne would be really allowed to have any real influence on the regence, at least de facto : no remarriage would make her being seen suspiciously at best.

As to Italy, I doubt there would be any further attempt during the regency. Its very rare to see foreign wars during a King's minority.
It's rare, but again, not unheard of as during the minority of Charles VI.
Giving that Louis is still likely to inherit at this point, and that in order to enforce Valois' claims on Naples you'd need strong points in Italy (likely maintain of alliance with Borgia) and that the need to strike within historical "window of opportunity" would be obvious for everyone...

That said, I'd see a more cautious Second War of Italy, there.

On the other hand, I wonder if we could see an Orléans expedition against Milan, funded and led by Louis instead of by the Kingdom of France. It would be similar to the d'Anjou invasion of Sicily in the 1200s.
That's unlikely to happen with Louis d'Orléans being regent or at the very least being part of the Regence. Charles d'Anjou had the "benefit" to not being considered regent-material.

Finally, its impossible to know what Charles IX would do once he comes of age. I can see his mother and aunt being against further Italian expeditions and discouraging them in their young Sovereign.
I don't exactly see why, there. Nobody really prevented Charles VIII going to Naples and the whole political/background in the court was all about Italy.
It's really unlikely that Valois would just "gave up" on Italian opportunities : a series of defeat and half-victories didn't made that IOTL, after all.

Its impossible to tell.
You know I'm not a big fan of "After a PoD, random **** happens". Eventually there's such a thing as historical tendencies and political background.

Flanders were gave up at least since Louis IX's reign, as too costly to conquer and even more so to maintain.
The Italian policy of Valois comes from more than Charles VIII suddenly deciding "I'm going to Italy, because." but from Italy being a political beacon for reinforcing Valois presence in HRE (in places where, at the contrary of Flanders, you could actually get allies), reinforcing prestige of Valois and eventually (it shouldn't be overlooked) abiding to a late Crusade spirit (that can be found in Late Medieval chevalresque culture, that appeared first in Burgundy, and then in French court) where southern Italy could be used as a base to counter Ottomans.

There's really few chances for the latter to happen, of course, but that was part of the motivation of not only Charles VIII, but from the French nobility in general.
 
Why would Charles Orlando be likely to die? In OTL he died because of a measles outbreak? If there he is never expsoed to it, is there a particular reason he would likey die?
 
Indeed, but they as well tend to not have holdings on their own, critically as strategical as Brittany. Neither Valois, Valois-Orléans and their clientele are going to be much comfortable with a "landed" regency (too many bad souvenirs from when it happened earlier).

Giving *Charles XI would be really young and, let's face it, still likely to die before being sacred, Louis d'Orléans (as his immediate heir) would likely have major support from Valois and their court.
You'd argue that Louis was as well landed, but Orléans was really less autonomous than Brittany at this point, and mostly was about fiscal revenues than political/strategical importance.


...She's the second person I mentioned in the post you just quoted, right after Louis d'Orléans...


I think that (and as you said) Anne de Bretagne possibility of being regent would make her more likely to support Louis d'Orléans this time : would it be only because he was far more close to Valois' interests, was still likely to inherit and by sheer defiance against Anne de Bretagne (as she proven IOTL).

As for remarriage, I doubt it.


Anne de Kiev, that married Raoul de Vexin, without any kind of pressure, would like to say a word about this.
Or Mary Stuart, for that matter.

(And of course Anne de Bretagne, that wasn't exactly forced ton managing to get a better deal with Louis)

This "rule" is painfully absent from any I could went into, except non-contemporary statement often attributed to Blanche de Navarre (but only only, as every scenic history, persons concerned often vary) "Queens of France doesn't remarry" that isn't a statement about a rule, but about her own opinion.

Queen of France didn't easily remarried because they often outlived their husbands while being out of mariage date (or because they found that marrying would have made their regency/influence on regence harder).

Would it be only, as said above, to keep Brittany close to Valois interests, and maybe promising her part of the power in the Regency, a remarriage seems quite possible.


You mean a really young son, that is still likely to die in infancy? Honestly, I saw better odds than that, for a stable succession.


Possibly, but nothing said that Charles HAD to get Brittany no matter what. Giving away a title for a younger Valois isn't exactly unheard of.
The main opposition would be rather, and it's a really valid one, that half-brothers of Charles IX being too close of the throne (which is why I don't think it's bound to happen)

But there, I doubt Anne would be really allowed to have any real influence on the regence, at least de facto : no remarriage would make her being seen suspiciously at best.


It's rare, but again, not unheard of as during the minority of Charles VI.
Giving that Louis is still likely to inherit at this point, and that in order to enforce Valois' claims on Naples you'd need strong points in Italy (likely maintain of alliance with Borgia) and that the need to strike within historical "window of opportunity" would be obvious for everyone...

That said, I'd see a more cautious Second War of Italy, there.


That's unlikely to happen with Louis d'Orléans being regent or at the very least being part of the Regence. Charles d'Anjou had the "benefit" to not being considered regent-material.


I don't exactly see why, there. Nobody really prevented Charles VIII going to Naples and the whole political/background in the court was all about Italy.
It's really unlikely that Valois would just "gave up" on Italian opportunities : a series of defeat and half-victories didn't made that IOTL, after all.


You know I'm not a big fan of "After a PoD, random **** happens". Eventually there's such a thing as historical tendencies and political background.

Flanders were gave up at least since Louis IX's reign, as too costly to conquer and even more so to maintain.
The Italian policy of Valois comes from more than Charles VIII suddenly deciding "I'm going to Italy, because." but from Italy being a political beacon for reinforcing Valois presence in HRE (in places where, at the contrary of Flanders, you could actually get allies), reinforcing prestige of Valois and eventually (it shouldn't be overlooked) abiding to a late Crusade spirit (that can be found in Late Medieval chevalresque culture, that appeared first in Burgundy, and then in French court) where southern Italy could be used as a base to counter Ottomans.

There's really few chances for the latter to happen, of course, but that was part of the motivation of not only Charles VIII, but from the French nobility in general.

My bad:eek:, I got the two Annes confused on your post.

As to marriages, I mean that most Queen Dowagers/Mothers didn't remarry unless they had to. Mary Stuart was also Queen Regnant of Scots, with a close claim to the English throne. She'd need to marry to produce an heir.
None of the widows of the last Capet Kings remarried, neither did any of the other Valois Queens. Anna of Kiev was more of an exception rather than the rule.

To Charles IX's health however, I disagree. He died of measles, not epilepsy or convulsions, but an avoidable disease. So there's no guarantee that Louis d'Orléans is likely to inherit. Not to mention with a POD in 1495 could allow the second Charles (Charles Orlando's brother I mean) to survive as well. We don't really know what killed him. In that case Louis d'Orléans would be second in line, not heir presumptive.

Finally, as to Italy vs. the Low Countries, both are wealthy and both offer possible benefits and losses. From what I remember François I was interested in expanding in both regions, so clearly the low countries was still seen as conquerable at this point. It will depend on the internal situations of both the Holy Roman Empire and on Spain as well. The Spanish would later divide Naples with Louis XII, so we could see Fernando II decide to conquer Naples early. If so, gaining Naples would mean a direct war with Spain as well.
 
None of the widows of the last Capet Kings remarried, neither did any of the other Valois Queens. Anna of Kiev was more of an exception rather than the rule.
But again, there's no rule at all, except from a romanticist narrative (and a badly made one, with that).
It's eventually explained by non-institutional features (as in two people surviving up to roughly old age, or at least non-marriable age) as well than political one (marrying with someone too powerful would have meant to loose a real grasp on court politics. And as queens were generally from high lineages, marrying with low nobles wasn't exactly an option)

To Charles IX's health however, I disagree. He died of measles, not epilepsy or convulsions, but an avoidable disease.
In an era where infantile mortality is really current, I'm really sceptic that having survived an avoidable disease would allow him to avoid every other possible infantile death.

So there's no guarantee that Louis d'Orléans is likely to inherit.
He's litteraly next in line, in an era where childs dies quite easily, even among nobility. If *Charles IX survives ITTL up to his majority, you simply can't expect people to know that in advance.

Not to mention with a POD in 1495 could allow the second Charles (Charles Orlando's brother I mean) to survive as well.
Of course, but a PoD in 1495 allows as well Charles VIII's survival, as I pointed above. Giving the OP doesn't mention either, though...

In that case Louis d'Orléans would be second in line, not heir presumptive.
It's not exactly what the OP stated.
But let's considerthat : we end with two young childs in an era where child mortality is high, and it still makes Louis d'Orléans outliving them quite probable, on a statistical level.
Even if they both doesn't die ITTL after having survived their IOTL death, we can't really expect people to have visions from future to guide their choices. :p

Finally, as to Italy vs. the Low Countries, both are wealthy and both offer possible benefits and losses.
Both are wealthy, but Italy provides more regional allies (while almost none in Flanders), more prestige (I detailed why above) and fitting the general nobiliar interest (when Flanders didn't).
I'm not sure if you just dismiss these differences and what make them important (and I would genuinly interested why) or if you just think that Flanders should have been the geopolitical focus of Valois (which could be debated, but didn't have a really important base for historically).

From what I remember François I was interested in expanding in both regions, so clearly the low countries was still seen as conquerable at this point.
Could you devellop on this equal interest on the region, compared to Italy?
From the sources I've at hand, I don't see any real interest going for Flanders (as in not one expedition) that would be equal to Italy (5 expeditions) myself.

Not that Flanders and Northern France weren't seen as a natural "front" for Valois, but I simply didn't see any expansionism in this region that could be compared, even partially, to Italy.

The Spanish would later divide Naples with Louis XII
The division was soon broken (it was more or less unsustainable anyway) but depended mostly on Louis XII's policies. ITTL, and it's one of the point we both agree with (so I'm not sure about the relevance of this part), while Louis could go for Milan, Valois would probably be more cautious on Naples to begin with, with a greater focus given at *Charles IX's majority.
 
Top