WI France accepted isabella's cliaims and made Edward King

What would happen if france recognized isabellas claims and made Edward king of france. What would the ramifications of a such a move be, how woud it change Europe and is it even possible?
 
Impossible doesn't covers it : this is anti-possible.

1) The masculinity was already the rule for royal fiefdoms (even if never established for kingdom, fail of being needed so far) and apanages.

2) Eventually, it was accepted (if not by great enjoyment) that the brothers of the king had precedence over his daughters, increasing the importance of masculine sucession

The whole point was eventually : "Could someone transmit a right that it doesn't have?" The answer had some serious odds to be "Lolno".

And admitting the pairs would agree with this, Isabelle would have to concede the daughter of Charles IV precedence. Even with this, there was no way that she would have see Edward recognized as king, as his claims were dubious at best.

3) The Valois were really popular (having prepared, at the contrary of virtually everyone else, their entry) among the french nobility, while Edward was young (under tutelage of his mother and Mortimer), foreign and with...well, almost real political importance outside Guyenne and maybe Flanders.

4) And, of course, pairs didn't wanted a foreign king in first place, so Edward's candidacy was doomed.
 
Impossible doesn't covers it : this is anti-possible.

1) The masculinity was already the rule for royal fiefdoms (even if never established for kingdom, fail of being needed so far) and apanages.

2) Eventually, it was accepted (if not by great enjoyment) that the brothers of the king had precedence over his daughters, increasing the importance of masculine sucession

The whole point was eventually : "Could someone transmit a right that it doesn't have?" The answer had some serious odds to be "Lolno".

And admitting the pairs would agree with this, Isabelle would have to concede the daughter of Charles IV precedence. Even with this, there was no way that she would have see Edward recognized as king, as his claims were dubious at best.

3) The Valois were really popular (having prepared, at the contrary of virtually everyone else, their entry) among the french nobility, while Edward was young (under tutelage of his mother and Mortimer), foreign and with...well, almost real political importance outside Guyenne and maybe Flanders.

4) And, of course, pairs didn't wanted a foreign king in first place, so Edward's candidacy was doomed.

You're right that it was a serious push for this to ever approach being likely, but remember that there was some support in France for Edward. The University of Paris, for example, debated the matter intensely for many months and eventually decided that Edward's claim was the superior one. Of course, Philip V just responded by having all the scholars exiled and replaced with men who would support his candidacy, but it shows that there was a little bit of tolerance for the English claim.
 
You're right that it was a serious push for this to ever approach being likely, but remember that there was some support in France for Edward.
There wasn't were it mattered. French nobility was cut from his anglo-norman counterpart since Philipp II (at the exception of Flanders, more driven by a common defiance towards Late Capetians and Valois; and Guyenne due to a strong link with their dukes).

The University of Paris, for example, debated the matter intensely for many months and eventually decided that Edward's claim was the superior one
It was not the university, as an institution, that debated that : it was a gathering of universitarians, pairs, clegy that decided, eventually, that not only Philip V was the rightful ruler but that women were excluded from sucession and couldn't transmit the title.

Claims from Edward weren't studied, it was from the beggining about or Philipp's claim, or Joan of Navarra (that blamed his uncle to have purged the council).

I would think you did a confusion with the later discussion in University, but I can be mistaken myself : however, searching trough, it's the only real council on that matter I could find.

Again, or women couldn't transmit rights to the crown and Isabelle's claims were void.
Or they could, and Isabelle's claims were void *anyway* as Joan of Navarre and the daughters of late Capetians had superiors rights.
Both way, the claims of Edwards III weren't valids to begin (or more precisely, were valids but didn't put him on throne) with and couldn't have been judged superior.

EDIT : Wait, maybe it was Philipp VI not V you tought of? I will check on this.

RE-EDIT : Actually, before Philipp VI coronation, the claims of Edward encountered some support, mostly isolated though, and coming from roughly the same people that supported Robert d'Artois claims on Artois by his aunt's legacy (that the French kings entierly ignored, making a precedent). Interestingly, Artois exiled himself in Plantagenet's court.
A good part of remaining support, in 1328, didn't came from sucession legitimacy (that, again, wasn't favouring Edward in ANY way) but from a situation where sucession was blurry and where it went more or less (like before Philipp II Augustus) to an elective fashion.
 
Last edited:
I've done a bit of my own looking around and I'm not sure where I got it from either (in fairness it was a good few years ago that I learned that bit). From what I've seen, I'm starting to think that it was the reign of Henry V when the UoP favoured the English claim, and that may be for obvious reasons. I'm not really sure though.
 
I'm starting to think that it was the reign of Henry V when the UoP favoured the English claim, and that may be for obvious reasons. I'm not really sure though.
Even there, the UoP didn't said Henry V claim was superior, they considered the treaty passed with Charles VI legit, and the Lancastre as his rightful heir (If Edward III claim was dubious, Lancastre's was clearly not valid) at the contrary of french sucessions laws (particularly the one where a king couldn't remove his heir from sucession, as he was more the recipiendary of the crown than its owner)

But even there, Henry V and his son were recognized because of the Treaty of Troyes, by right of conquest and not Plantagenet's claims. And seeing how much it went against the laws of sucession, it was easy for Charles VII to break it.

On a related note, while I understand the confusion, I think its worth pointing, to illustrate an anti-Valois bias (coming eventually from an old british historiography) on the question that makes such affirmation easy to make without real reaction, or even blinking (more or less like the affirmation about how Pearl Harbour ravaged US navy)

Again, if Edward III's claim wasn't totally absurd, it was less important than Navarre's or daughter of late Capetians if we admit the validity of women's sucessions or transmitting it.
 
Last edited:
Top