WI: Henri IV’s First Marriage

As we all know, Enrique III of Navarre/Henri de Bourbon, Duc de Vendôme became a Catholic after succeeding to the French throne. He was married to the last of the Valois kings of France’s sister. However, the marriage had remained childless (although, if one believes the stories, neither had problems conceiving with other people). I’ve seen it posited, that the minute Henri IV had a son by Marguerite de Valois ‘la Reine Margot’, Catherine de Medicis would’ve had him done away with. Though, in the same breath, I will caution that Catherine was willing to see her own daughter supplanted when it became apparent (shortly before Catherine’s death) that Margot seemingly couldn’t give Henri a child, since she offered her own granddaughter (Margot’s niece, Christine of Lorraine OTL Grand Duchess of Tuscany) as a replacement wife for Henri.
Now for my question, I’m unsure as to the grounds on which Henri and Margot’s annulment was granted – it could be anything from consanguinity (they were second cousins) to childlessness, to perhaps lack of consent for the marriage for the contracted parties (can’t remember the movie’s name, but Margot is shown as weeping at the wedding, and her brother the king gets up to beat her (although this could be a liberty, since Henri is in the movie also shown alongside at the altar, whilst in real life he was forced to remain on the porch of Notre Dame due to his not being Catholic)).

But, assuming childlessness (AFAIK a dispensation had been granted as to the consanguinity) was the reason, what if Margot had popped out a few living daughters (she herself was the healthiest of Catherine de Medicis’ children) before Henri becomes king of France? Could/would Henri still divorce her, since he would know that girls cannot succeed to the throne of France? Or would he simply take an attitude of que sera sera, maybe engineer the marriage of his youngest daughter to the prince de Condé’s son and watch Navarre and France go their separate ways once he dies? Or does he take the radical step of having the law changes so that his daughter can succeed?

Henri IV, King of France [1589-], King of Navarre [1572-] (b.1553) m: 1572 Marguerite de Valois (b.1553)

1. Madeleine (b.1573)
2. Jeanne (b.1578)
3. Catherine (b.1580)
4. Charlotte (b.1581, d.1582)
5. Antoinette (b.1584)
 
Could D. Felipe II entertain the idea of a Bourbon bride for his son in the hopes of annexing Navarre by marriage (particularly if he marries OTL D. Diego or OTL Felipe III to Madeleine de Bourbon? Or would her father's Huguenot past remove such a match from the table?
 
Ok so, most likely Marguerite de Valois and Henry IV of France are granted an annulment around 1595, when it is obvious the Queen will not have a son. Marguerite was not one to complain OTL and would most likely just do what she did OTL, while Henry marries most likely Marie de Medici and gets a son. Considering how it all went down OTL, unless Marguerite suddenly becomes a different woman through the miracle of childbirth, she isn't going to care and the French Princesses most likely stay Princesses.

Now, the Bourbon Princesses are going to be sought after brides, particularly Madeline. I can see her being married late, after a brother is born. let's say the annulment goes through in 1595 and Madeline de Bourbon is married soon after her half-brother in born around 1597. Philip II of Spain is playing the long game, then I can see the Princess Madeline becoming Queen Magdalena (Magdalena being the Spanish version of Madeline in many cases). If she isn't barren (which we obviously don't want), she might fix up the gene pool. Let's say Philip III of Spain and his Queen Magdalena undergo 5 pregnancies, with 4 children surviving (2 boys, 2 girls).

Now for the other Princesses: Jeanne (b.1578), Catherine (b.1580) and Antoinette (b.1584) (as the OP specified, the Princess Charlotte (b.1581: d.1582) died young). Jeanne I can see being married to Charles, Duke of Guise as a way to bring the Guise family under the royal prerogative. I can also imagine Catherine de Bourbon being a short-lived first wife of Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor, maybe until 1600. The Princess Antoinette might make a good second bride for Henry II, Duke of Lorraine after her Aunt dies in 1604, as she'd be only 20. With this bride, the Duke might actually have a living son and and let's say 2 children out of 6 survive, a boy and girl.

Henri IV of France (b.1553: d.1610) m. Marguerite de Valois (b.1553: d.1615) (a) -annulled 1596-, Marie de Medici (b.1575: d.1642) (b)

1a) Madeline de Bourbon (b.1573: d.1636) m. Philip III of France (b.1578: d.1621) (a)

1a) Stillborn Son (c.1599)

2a) Maria Catalina of Spain (b.1602)

3a) Philip IV of Spain (b.1605)

4a) Charles of Spain (b.1608)

5a) Anna Francesca of Spain (b.1610)​

2a) Jeanne de Bourbon (b.1578: d.1618) m. Charles, Duke of Guise (b.1571: d.1640) (a)

1a) Francis II, Duke of Guise (b.1596)

2a) Miscarriage (c.1597)

3a) Marie de Lorraine (b.1598)

4a) Charlotte de Lorraine (b.1599)

5a) Miscarriage (c.1601)

6a) Louis de Lorraine (b.1602)

7a) Jeanne de Lorraine (b.1604: d.1609)

8a) Renée de Lorraine (b.1605)

9a) Miscarriage (c.1607)

10a) Miscarriage (c.1610)

11a) Catherine de Lorraine (b.1611)

12a) Marguerite de Lorraine (b.1613: d.1619)

13a) Henri de Lorraine (b.1615)​

3a) Catherine de Bourbon (b.1580: d.1600) m. Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor (b.1578: d.1637) (a)

1a) Margaret of Austria (b.1600)​

4a) Charlotte de Bourbon (b.1581: d.1582)

5a) Antoinette de Bourbon (b.1584: d.1639) m. Henry II, Duke of Lorraine (b.1563: d.1624) (a)

1a) Henry III, Duke of Lorraine (b.1605)

2a) Miscarriage (c.1608)

3a) Marie de Lorraine (b.1610: d.1610)

4a) Nicole de Lorraine (b.1613)

5a) Miscarriage (c.1615)

6a) Miscarriage (c.1618)
6b) Louis XIII of France (b.1598) m. Eleonora Gonzaga (b.1598: d.1655) (a)

1a) Stillborn Son (c.1620)

2a) Miscarriage (c.1626)

3a) Henri V of France (b.1629)

4a) Miscarriage (c.1632)

5a) Madeline de Bourbon (b.1636)​

7b) Elisabeth de Bourbon (b.1601: d.1662) m. Victor Amadeus I, Duke of Savoy (b.1587: d.1637) (a)

1a) Stillborn Son (c.1620)

2a) Louise Catherine of Savoy (b.1623)

3a) Miscarriage (c.1624)

4a) Francis Amadeus, Duke of Savoy (b.1627)

5a) Marie Yolande of Savoy (b.1631)

6a) Miscarriage (c.1633)

7a) Charles Emmanuel of Savoy (b.1636)​

8b) Miscarriage (c.1602)

9b) Nicholas de Bourbon, Duke of Orleans (b.1604: d.1634) m. Marie de Bourbon, Duchess of Montpensier (b.1605: d.1629) (a)

1a) Madeline Louise Therese de Bourbon (b.1626)

2a) Jean de Bourbon, Duke of Orleans and Montpensier (b.1629)​

10b) Christine de Bourbon (b.1606: d.1630) m. Charles I of England (b.1601: d. 1649) (a)

1a) Charles II of England (b.1627)

2a) Mary Stuart (b.1629)

3a) Henry Stuart, Duke of York (b.1630: d.1642)​

11b) Gaston de Bourbon, Duke of Berry (b.1609: d.1632)​
 
Out of curiosity, why a wife for Ferdinand II? He was pretty far down in the succession until Henri's death -what with Emperor Rudolf and Archdukes Matthias, Ernst, Albrecht and Maximilian ahead ofhim, all of whom aren't married until the 1610s (except Rudolf who never did (a sort of male Elizabeth Tudor), Ernst who was dead and Albrecht who married in the sunset years of the previous century)
 
Out of curiosity, why a wife for Ferdinand II? He was pretty far down in the succession until Henri's death -what with Emperor Rudolf and Archdukes Matthias, Ernst, Albrecht and Maximilian ahead ofhim, all of whom aren't married until the 1610s (except Rudolf who never did (a sort of male Elizabeth Tudor), Ernst who was dead and Albrecht who married in the sunset years of the previous century)

I think I meant Matthias, but got confused. Whoops
 
I think I meant Matthias, but got confused. Whoops

Well, maybe Mats gets kids, or at least has a less frictive relationship with Rudi, since one of the causes of deterioration of Rudolf's relationship with his brother was because he regarded them as having "stolen" his fiancées - Isabel Clara Eugenia and Anna of Tyrol
 
I've been spending the day wondering about something. What if the pope decided not to annul Henri's first marriage (pick a reason why). Margot had the most robust health of any of her siblings, so chances are pretty good she still outlives Henri. Navarre splits from France (again),but since his sister left no heirs, the nearest heir that I can find, is the Rohan descendants of Isabeau d'Albret. France continues under the house of Bourbon(-Condé?). How would Henri react to the refusal of Rome to annul his marriage? And what might the consequences be if he has no direct male heir?
 
If Henri IV can not have legitimate sons, his heir is Henri II of Condé, but his legitimacy is contested by his uncles, as he was born posthumous to a mother then in prison for having allegedly killed her husband. Of these uncles, François of Conti is married to Jeanne de Coesme but has no children ; Charles of Soissons is not married and in love with Henri IV's sister. OTL, Henri did not allow the marriage, but he could if Soissons is so close to the throne. Problem : Catherine of Navarre was born in 1559.
 
If Henri IV can not have legitimate sons, his heir is Henri II of Condé, but his legitimacy is contested by his uncles, as he was born posthumous to a mother then in prison for having allegedly killed her husband. Of these uncles, François of Conti is married to Jeanne de Coesme but has no children ; Charles of Soissons is not married and in love with Henri IV's sister. OTL, Henri did not allow the marriage, but he could if Soissons is so close to the throne. Problem : Catherine of Navarre was born in 1559.

Meaning that she's probably close-to/going through menopause, so a child is unlikely - not impossible (Marguerite de Valois, their mother's cousin was like 38 when she gave birth to the future duke of Savoy).
 
The de Rohan family was pretty in-your-face and all-round pompous a-holes OTL from what I can make out (at least several key members of the family seem to have been), how does Navarre fare with them now being a king? Do we see more intermarriage between the houses of Rohan and Bourbon? Does Spain attempt to annex Navarre outright? Or France? (It wouldn't be the first time that either had tried to do so)?

And if no marriage to Marie de Medicis, does Henri IV still get assassinated (the two things are seemingly unrelated, but somewhere I read that she knew about the attempt beforehand, but did nothing)? Or does he die a natural death? And does France fall to infighting again - between the Prince de Condé and his uncles?
 
The de Rohan family was pretty in-your-face and all-round pompous a-holes OTL from what I can make out (at least several key members of the family seem to have been), how does Navarre fare with them now being a king? Do we see more intermarriage between the houses of Rohan and Bourbon? Does Spain attempt to annex Navarre outright? Or France? (It wouldn't be the first time that either had tried to do so)?

And if no marriage to Marie de Medicis, does Henri IV still get assassinated (the two things are seemingly unrelated, but somewhere I read that she knew about the attempt beforehand, but did nothing)? Or does he die a natural death? And does France fall to infighting again - between the Prince de Condé and his uncles?

Bump?
 
The de Rohan family was pretty in-your-face and all-round pompous a-holes OTL from what I can make out (at least several key members of the family seem to have been), how does Navarre fare with them now being a king? Do we see more intermarriage between the houses of Rohan and Bourbon? Does Spain attempt to annex Navarre outright? Or France? (It wouldn't be the first time that either had tried to do so)?

And if no marriage to Marie de Medicis, does Henri IV still get assassinated (the two things are seemingly unrelated, but somewhere I read that she knew about the attempt beforehand, but did nothing)? Or does he die a natural death? And does France fall to infighting again - between the Prince de Condé and his uncles?
These traits, from what I've read. would make the Rohans little different from previous ruling dynasties in Navarre.
 
And to the victors go the spoils? France and Spain partition Navarre a la Poland between them, and then marry their respective children to one another in order to seal a Franco-Spanish alliance that will last as long as it lasts?
 
The de Rohan family was pretty in-your-face and all-round pompous a-holes OTL from what I can make out (at least several key members of the family seem to have been), how does Navarre fare with them now being a king? Do we see more intermarriage between the houses of Rohan and Bourbon? Does Spain attempt to annex Navarre outright? Or France? (It wouldn't be the first time that either had tried to do so)?

And if no marriage to Marie de Medicis, does Henri IV still get assassinated (the two things are seemingly unrelated, but somewhere I read that she knew about the attempt beforehand, but did nothing)? Or does he die a natural death? And does France fall to infighting again - between the Prince de Condé and his uncles?
That's quite severe for the Rohans, at that time, dowager viscountess Catherine (1554-1631), viscount Henri II (1579-1638), Benjamin de Soubise (1583-1642), Henriette (1577-1624), Catherine (1580-1607) and Anne (1584-1646). By all accounts, Catherine de Parthenay was a brilliant woman with a complete humanist education, able both to write court theatre and to coordinate the efforts of the protestant nobility. Henri II was quite appreciated by the Protestant leaders of his time (he was the godfather of Charles I, for example).

I want to point out that Navarre, outside of its royal title, has few thing to offer : since 1512, all Baja Navarra (our spanish Navarre) is firmly held by the Spanish. So the true base of power of a navarrese king were his lordships in France itself. From this perspective, the Rohans, though quite rich, were light-years away from Henri III/IV. The french succession law dictated that all lordships held in France by a king before his accession to the throne must merge with the crown's patrimony. Henri IV was unwilling to do so, some of his lordships, of uncertain status (Béarn, Andorra), were not merged into the crown's lands before Louis XIII's times. If Henri IV has no heir, he could favor the Rohans by giving them Béarn in addition to the tiny Haute Navarre, but nothing more, though they are the lawful heirs to the rest of the Albret lands. In fact, he would probably see it another way : linking Bearn to Navarre's fate would be the only solution to uphold the protestant ascendancy in the country, so it would be a favor made to the Bearnais, not to Rohan.

The Rohan's position in the Brittany order of succession is much less secured : they descend from Marie of Brittany, daughter of duke Francis I († 1511), but both she and her sister were excluded from the succession by the semi-salic law applicable in Brittany since 1365. The many descendants of their cousin Anne came first. Anyways, the Valois kings had held the point view of a merger of Brittany into the Crown's lands, regardless of the various treaties made earlier, so no reason for the Rohans to make much more than claiming.
 
That's quite severe for the Rohans, at that time, dowager viscountess Catherine (1554-1631), viscount Henri II (1579-1638), Benjamin de Soubise (1583-1642), Henriette (1577-1624), Catherine (1580-1607) and Anne (1584-1646). By all accounts, Catherine de Parthenay was a brilliant woman with a complete humanist education, able both to write court theatre and to coordinate the efforts of the protestant nobility. Henri II was quite appreciated by the Protestant leaders of his time (he was the godfather of Charles I, for example).

I want to point out that Navarre, outside of its royal title, has few thing to offer : since 1512, all Baja Navarra (our spanish Navarre) is firmly held by the Spanish. So the true base of power of a navarrese king were his lordships in France itself. From this perspective, the Rohans, though quite rich, were light-years away from Henri III/IV. The french succession law dictated that all lordships held in France by a king before his accession to the throne must merge with the crown's patrimony. Henri IV was unwilling to do so, some of his lordships, of uncertain status (Béarn, Andorra), were not merged into the crown's lands before Louis XIII's times. If Henri IV has no heir, he could favor the Rohans by giving them Béarn in addition to the tiny Haute Navarre, but nothing more, though they are the lawful heirs to the rest of the Albret lands. In fact, he would probably see it another way : linking Bearn to Navarre's fate would be the only solution to uphold the protestant ascendancy in the country, so it would be a favor made to the Bearnais, not to Rohan.

The Rohan's position in the Brittany order of succession is much less secured : they descend from Marie of Brittany, daughter of duke Francis I († 1511), but both she and her sister were excluded from the succession by the semi-salic law applicable in Brittany since 1365. The many descendants of their cousin Anne came first. Anyways, the Valois kings had held the point view of a merger of Brittany into the Crown's lands, regardless of the various treaties made earlier, so no reason for the Rohans to make much more than claiming.

True, but I read somewhere that the duke of Mercoeur actually styled his son as the "Hereditary Prince of Brittany" during the wars when Henri IV succeeded to the French throne (and from what I can make out, Mercoeur's claim came from the descendants of Jeanne la Boiteuse and her Blois husband (who held the right to succeed (by treaty) should the male-line of the house of Brittany die out). True, said son died and his sister was later married to César, Duc de Vendôme, but the fact that one noble did it (and seemingly even got the Breton Estates or somesuch to agree to naming his son this), means that if the Rohans were to take a mind to it, they could just as easily claim it, couldn't they?
 
True, but I read somewhere that the duke of Mercoeur actually styled his son as the "Hereditary Prince of Brittany" during the wars when Henri IV succeeded to the French throne (and from what I can make out, Mercoeur's claim came from the descendants of Jeanne la Boiteuse and her Blois husband (who held the right to succeed (by treaty) should the male-line of the house of Brittany die out). True, said son died and his sister was later married to César, Duc de Vendôme, but the fact that one noble did it (and seemingly even got the Breton Estates or somesuch to agree to naming his son this), means that if the Rohans were to take a mind to it, they could just as easily claim it, couldn't they?

The treaty of 1365 made Brittany heritable by the male line of the Montfort house, then, in case of its extinction, by the house of Blois (Penthièvre) ; but it was understood, if the male line of Penthièvre survived. So the Mercoeur claim was based on a biased interpretation of the 1365 treaty, but the 1365 treaty nonetheless, while the Rohan claims are based on a succession system excluded by the same treaty. But sure, they could claim, and they did. But OTL, they insisted on their Navarre connections to obtain a duchy rather than on their breton ones.
 
Top