WI: Charles the Bold born female

There could be other possibilities outside a Valois marriage : probably not Bourbon giving that Agnès de Bourgogne already became a Bourbon princess, but maybe Alençon or Orléans, or really another house in the Empire (critically to try going out of French sphere)

Assuming a Valois/Valois-Bourgogne matrimonial union, though.

The Praguerie is going to have some changes, with Louis having more support : I could see him selling out more easily this political weight (and then fighting revoltees after having let open possibility to join them) against increased political power (we're talking of the future Louis XI there, it's definitely something he would have done).

Not only a largely autonomous Dauphiné (that usually knew some form of royal control) as IOTL, but probably some form of real lieutenance in France : he had so earlier IOTL in Languedoc then Poitou, but without real decisional power. I would expect a real lieutenance in a part of France ITTL.

Overall, Charles will be pissed out, as IOTL, but Louis was already particularly skilled even at this point, so...
 
Last edited:
Philip the Good was increasingly becoming more independent with respect to France. The rivalry between Valois-Orleans and Valois-Burgundy also contributed to this.

However in contrast to the Imperial fiefs (including Franche Comté) and Flanders, where women could inherit in the absence of men, this might be harder for some of the other French fiefs. Not to mention that the duchy of Burgundy proper was considered to be an appanage by the French Crown, whereas the Valois-Burgundy dukes preferred to see themselves as successors to the Capetian dukes of Burgundy (in which case they'd be able and allowed to pass the duchy to a daughter, if the duke didn't have a son).

How about a marriage with duke John II of Lorraine from the house of Valois-Anjou? This would link up the northern possessions (Burgundian Netherlands) with the southern possessions (duchy of Burgundy, county palatine of Burgundy).
 
Last edited:
I would expect Philip the Good to leave his land in a bit less of a mess than Charles himself did when he left his lands to a daughter.

Whether that'd be still a Habsburg marriage or something like Lorraine, or simply a few more ironclad treaties to support the whole inheritance going to his daughter, I don't know.
 
I would expect Philip the Good to leave his land in a bit less of a mess than Charles himself did when he left his lands to a daughter.

Whether that'd be still a Habsburg marriage or something like Lorraine, or simply a few more ironclad treaties to support the whole inheritance going to his daughter, I don't know.

She'll need a spouse either way. Not to mention it will remain to be seen, what those treaties are worth, once she succeeds.
 
Yep.

Female inheritance on mainland Europe tended to be a bitch.

Not just mainland Europe, I'd say it was harder in general. Also in Burgundy's case there were powerful neighbours, which disputed the validity of female inheritance in a number of the fiefs/principalities held by the house of Valois-Burgundy, obviously when it suited them.
In a number of those territories there was a well established tradition, that women could inherit in the absence of men, most of the Imperial fiefs and Flanders. The OTL division between the main Valois branch and Habsburg, after the demise of Charles the Bold in part* recognizes this (*= there were more factors involved).

Outside of mainland Europe, when there were other contenders, there would also have been disputes; however direct foreign involvement would be harder.
 
Also in Burgundy's case there were powerful neighbours, which disputed the validity of female inheritance in a number of the fiefs/principalities held by the house of Valois-Burgundy, obviously when it suited them.
As for Burgundy, one shouldn't forget they were considered as an apanage by Valois (meaning a title and land from royal demesne granted by a king to a son).
These were a bit of a special case on the feudal succession, as intended to turn back to the crown if the main line would have died, as it happened with Charles at Nancy.

Of course, that doesn't mean there wasn't room for interpretations : namely, what could be legitimally taken by the crown?
Territories and titles originally given, territories and titles under french suzerainty? All of it, even outside the kingdom stricto sensu?
 
The duchy of Burgundy, held by the house of Valois-Burgundy, was consided an appanage by the main line of the house of Valois. However the duchy of Burgundy under the Capetian house of Burgundy wasn't, in fact they could pass inheritance through the female in the absence of a male heir; this situation was basically claimed by Valois-Burgundy (for obvious reasons).

Also Burgundy was much more than the duchy of Burgundy proper, many of those titles were gained by inheritance or even purchased.
IOTL Philip the Good was a much better politician than OTL Charles the Bold; so I can see Valois-Burgundy being in such a state, that they would be able to hold on to everything, which can't be considered an appanage, a fief reverted to the French due to the lack of male heirs or simply being in the Burgundian sphere (like Picardy).
This basically means that the heiress of Burgundy will lose Burgundy proper, but can hope to retain the French fiefs Artois, Flanders and Charolais and their Imperial Possessions (the duchies of Lothier, Brabant, Limburg, and Luxemburg; the county palatine of Burgundy; the counties of Hainaut, Holland and Zeeland; the margraviate of Namur). Even ITTL Burgundy has also reconciled with Empire and the Emperor; it was OTL Philip the Bold, who did this.

IOTL France, after the death of Charles the Bold, seized the duchy of Burgundy proper, the counties of Artois, and Charolais, also Picardy, but also the imperial fief county palatine (AKA free county) of Burgundy (Franche Comté).

ITTL Burgundy is in a much better shape, than IOTL after the death of Charles the Bold, who had squandered much of the resources build up by Philip the Good. Probably something close to the treaty of Senlis might be achieved. Especially since the king of France at this point is also facing opposition from most of his high nobility.
The OTL conflict of the king of France with League of the Public Weal, but also the OTL support of the Estates General of the Burgundian Netherlands to protect their sovereign lady (in exchange for the great privilege); will probably result in something like Senlis (or worst case Arras).
Anyway France in 1469 is weaker than in 1477, whereas Burgundy was stronger in 1469 than in 1477 (in both cases also relatively towards the other).
The Estates General (of the Burgundian Netherlands) will be willing to defend the legal inheritance of their sovereign lady, but won't be willing to defend everything within the Burgundian sphere, nor will they they want to fight too long for the symbolic yet disputed duchy of Burgundy proper. I also suspect they will focus on neighboring Artois. In fact they may force their sovereign lady to accept a relatively good peace treaty.
For instance the loss of the actual duchy, maybe also Charolais, the Somme towns, and all* vassals Burgundy had gained with treaty of Arras (1435), so Auxerre, Macon, Ponthieu, Vermandois and Boulogne.

In any case 'Burgundy'** will shift from an French vassal holding Imperial fiefs to an Imperial vassal holding some French fiefs.
This will still make it a major price for the Habsburgs, Lorraine (either Valois-Anjou or Vaudemont) or maybe the Wittelsbach Elector Palatine (by Rhine).

(*= some (close to the Low Countries)might be interesting to keep though, but they're in a weak position to claim anything beyond the legal inheritance; **= though without the duchy)
 
However the duchy of Burgundy under the Capetian house of Burgundy wasn't, in fact they could pass inheritance through the female in the absence of a male heir; this situation was basically claimed by Valois-Burgundy (for obvious reasons).
Actually, the Capetian House of Burgundy was retro-actively considered as an apanage; while neither the concept or name was used in the early XIth century.

It's partially due to the cession of the Duchy to Henri by Robert II, and when this one became his successor, to his other son Robert.
You already have the precedent of a duchy that was gaven to a son that wouldn't be transmitted the crown (especially in a time where sons were crowned during their father's reign).

(It's interesting to note that it was transmitted as such even before Hugues Capet came to power)

Generally, it's understood as a proto-apanage, even if it wasn't obviously considered so : Valois had good counter-arguments on the first Capetian Burgundy nature.

Also Burgundy was much more than the duchy of Burgundy proper, many of those titles were gained by inheritance or even purchased.
Indeed, but I'm not sure I said otherwise in the last part of my post.

This basically means that the heiress of Burgundy will lose Burgundy proper, but can hope to retain the French fiefs Artois, Flanders and Charolais and their Imperial Possessions (the duchies of Lothier, Brabant, Limburg, and Luxemburg; the county palatine of Burgundy; the counties of Hainaut, Holland and Zeeland; the margraviate of Namur).
I doubt it could hold onto that as easily you picture it : Valois France was at this point strong enough to enforce a large claim on Burgundy (especially when it went to regions not only under french suzerainty, but whom acquisition was made by the duke on Valois). Artois especially would be too important strategically for not being largely disputed, even if holding on Flanders proper seems far less certain to me (you'll need Valois to make far better offers than any rival, and that's not something they could pull easily).

As for county palatine, I'd think it would essentially depend from the imperial good will : if they're interested on preventing a too a powerful principality in the western part of the empire, more than breaking Valois (which, admittedly is open to discussion), they could support partial claims from France on both Burgundies.
Or Valois trying to trade it in exchange to renouncing Flanders, but giving they couldn't have really hold on it in first place...Depends if Lorraine/Burgundy is willing to go for attrition war or not.

Admittedly they could be more interested into splitting Artois in half, with N-W (Saint Omer, maybe Thérouanne) for Burgundy-Lorraine and S-E (Arras) for Valois

We discussed it some time ago, and I think I'm generally sticking with what I tought would be the situation with such marriage with Lorraine, basically this (As said above, I'm dubious about the Free County. Not that Valois would be particularly interested on it, but they'd be annoyed at any kind of geographical encirclement)

Especially since the king of France at this point is also facing opposition from most of his high nobility.
Giving most of this opposition was fueled by Charles we could certainly not seeing it appear. Without him, there's only Brittany with enough strength and political power to take its role, and they had neither the ressources or the possibilities Burgundy had, and the League wouldn't benefit from the encirclement Charles made possible : Bretons would be the main priority and probably crushed hard.

In any case 'Burgundy'** will shift from an French vassal holding Imperial fiefs to an Imperial vassal holding some French fiefs.
I don't know if they would get unconditional support from HRE : Imperials would prefer to clean off the mess, appear as arbitles of peace and prevent a too powerful entity in their western periphery. Preventing Valois to turn all Borg is one thing, but they'll keep in mind their own interest.
 
I'll remember that discussion went in circles. Still my point stands that the Burgundy left by OTL Philip the Good was in a much better shape, than the Burgundy left IOTL by his son Charles the Bold.

Also it isn't totally about unconditional support of the Holy Roman Empire and/or Emperor, it's also what the de facto situation will be. The same goes for the willingness of Estates General of the Burgundian Netherlands to fund their sovereign lady's defense.
Nor who I exclude the possibility that the French upper nobility, who would still oppose the centralization efforts of Louis XI, will still set a certain limit on what the king can do (. IOTL the League of the Public Weal was instigated by Charles the Bold, but given the number of members they would still unsettled ITTL too.

Anyway I can see both sides being forced to accept a certain settlement. I agree that Artois will be disputed, because it also is an area the Burgundian Netherlands (which are the core territories, if Burgundy proper is lost) has a strategic interest in, not to mention it belongs to their sovereign lady by right of inheritance. Burgundy proper as an appanage OTOH though a bitter pill to swallow for the new head of Valois-Burgundy will return to the French Crown*. Any French fiefs, which was under suzerainty of Burgundy will also be lost.
I think we can agree, that it remains to be decided, which side ends up with Artois, Charolais and possibly the county palatine of Burgundy.

(*= the Estates of the duchy of Burgundy will probably prefer to be administered separately)

OTOH OTL Charles the Bold was born in 1433 and Philip the Good and the situation, so assuming Philip the Good doesn't have another son, he might even have his daughter and heiress already married by the time he eventually dies.
 
I'll remember that discussion went in circles.
I'm a bit surprised you remember it this way : we didn't agreed but it doesn't mean it wasn't informative.

Nor who I exclude the possibility that the French upper nobility, who would still oppose the centralization efforts of Louis XI, will still set a certain limit on what the king can do (. IOTL the League of the Public Weal was instigated by Charles the Bold, but given the number of members they would still unsettled ITTL too.
Indeed, you'd have still an opposing high nobility in France, but without Burgundy active part, not only it would be weaker (a good part of its strategy IOTL was to surround Louis XI and forces him to either divise his forces or to gamble victory) but would be less attractible for some lesser members.
Overall, if a formal league still appears (and that would be another field of discussion) it would be a weaker one, in matter of ressources, forces and geopolitics.

I think we can agree, that it remains to be decided, which side ends up with Artois, Charolais and possibly the county palatine of Burgundy.
I agree, as I said above, I think that Artois would likely be divided in a situation without any clear victor (which is the most likely ITTL), while Charolais and Free County is more blur : it depends from a possible arbitrage from either papacy (I doubt a lot, but it would be the classical way) or Habsburgs (or even another third party, but I don't have names right now) but the main thing is that Louis XI wouldn't really accept a situation where he gets surrounded.

Any agreement that let Burgundy-Lorraine covers his eastern borders would be broken at the first opportunity. Hence why I think FC may ends neutralised (Given to another surviving son of Louis XI? Given to another daughter of Phillip III, possibly married with another Valois or this son?) or simply took over in a treaty that tries to settle the situation.

he might even have his daughter and heiress already married by the time he eventually dies.
Good point, in the case of an alliance with Lorraine, he would likely have prepared for the future. It could means a more tensed situation with France than IOTL, and a more important diplomacy with HRE. That said, this more important tension could mean a more important Valois focus, but that's an interesting change.
 
Last edited:
Top