WI France's Henri of Guise not killed in 1588?

We've had threads on Henri III not being killed, but what about the Duke of Guise?

This could be interesting fro the French Wars of Religion/French Civil War. If Henri III does take Paris anyway, as noted in a couple other threads, Henri IV may not feel the need to converted to Catholicism and perhaps won't even meet his mistress. I'm not sure how long henri III would have lived, but he'd surely outlive the Cardinal Bourbon, Charles - meaning Henri of Guise might either call on Isabella as an heir from Spain or maybe try to make himself heir? Either way, we could see Henri in control of Paris but with the Catholic League still strong.

OTOH, Henri III could still be assassinated anyway. Moderate Catholics were willing to support henri IV even in OTL, but if this happens, without any outrage over Guise's assassination, suddenly you might get more Catholics turned against the Guises and the League in general; after all, they would have committed regicide with Henri III being int he clear. Charles, the cardinal, may be placed on the throne but there could be a lot more opposition.
 
The main issue I can see is that the Catholic League was disunited and that a living Duc de Guise would probably, at term, increase the differences between the ligueux rather than unite them.

The sucession issues, critically would be a problem.
Alphone de Bourbon, was the only real french pretender they could have and once assassinated, they would be forced to call the Spanish crown. And that would likely pose issues to some ligueuses places.
 
It doesn't seem likely to me that without the treacherous betrayal in the murder of Guise that Catholic hardliners would have sought the death of Henry III. The question is, then, how long does Henry III live. I don't think it likely he would've produced a surviving male heir. He would have had to outlive Louise of Lorraine (d. 1601 IOTL) and then remarry and have a surviving son. Even assuming he would have had the capacity to sire children, only a small fraction of pregnancies would likely produce a surviving male. Henry of Navarre, childless with his first wife, would not be able to produce a recognized (by moderate Catholics) heir during Margaret's lifetime (d. 1614) until he becomes both King and Catholic and obtains an annulment. Did Huguenots allow for divorce? Even if so, no Catholics would have recognized such heirs. IIRC, even as a Catholic Henry considered marrying his mistress (after an annulment) and declaring his already born sons as his legal heirs. I doubt Conde, Conti, and Soissons would've all stood aside.

Are you imagining that Henry III still allies himself with Henry of Navarre and wars to destroy the Catholic League? It doesn't seem like Henry III to do such a thing. As soon as Guise seems to weak to depose him, Henry III would prefer to be at the head of the Catholic party, and the Catholic League would , absent the murder of Guise, prefer to accommodate him. The only thing that I think would make Guise and Henry III irrevocable opponents would be if Guise were to declare Henry's deposition. For the most part, though, Guise seemed wise enough to focus on the succession.

I can't imagine that Guise would have sought Henry III's death (and all the consequent opprobrium) just to have to fight for Cardinal de Bourbon to take the thrown over Henry of Navarre. For himself, maybe, but it doesn't seem that was in the cards. I suppose a marriage between his eldest and Isabella of Spain could possibly have brought both Spanish and substantial French Catholic support for the young couple. Could Guise plausibly think that he could manage to pass over even the remaining Catholic Bourbons? One other thing to bear in mind is that Philip II's death in 1598 probably ends any serious Spanish support for Isabella's succession.
 
Treacherous? The Duke of Guise had made all too clear that his continued survival and the French king were not compatable, and had plotted against the king for years so treachery is hardly the word.


Since the Church had openly endorsed assassination of key Protestants years earlier obviously the Duke's death did not lead to that.
 
I don't mean to defend Guise. I'm just trying to suggest that hard-line catholics saw it as treacherous and that Guise himself would not have likely tried to then assassinate the king. It may very well have been reasonable for Henry III to fear death at Guise's hand. If, for instance, Spain would agree to support Guise on the throne (and Henry III cannot know that Spain did not), Guise might attempt to depose Henry III as fast as he could. We know, though, that Spain and Guise agreed to support the Cardinal de Bourbon in the succession, and that after the Cardinal's death Spain supported Isabella.
 
Top