WI: Louis VII dies without male issue

This is a what-if I've been musing over from a wargaming perspective (so I've tended to presume events proceeding in a way to provoke conflict), but I think it's a potentially interesting POD even if none of that materializes.

Louis VII dies in 1180 with one son and a handful of daughters. The POD is that, when he dies (basically right on time), he doesn't have the son. This could be either by presuming Philip was never born and minimizing butterflies afterward, or, perhaps more reasonably, by assuming that Philip dies a few years before his father does in some kind of accident.

In 1180, as far as I have been able to discern, the French king was still nominally being elected by the nobility of France (nominally in that they had spent roughly the past 200 years electing Capets). There was, at the time, not yet a precedent of having only male kings of France (though the Anarchy in England might be fresh enough in everyone's memory to push them in that direction).

My reading has pushed me toward what I believe to be the three most likely candidates to take the throne after Louis:

Robert of Dreux was Louis' eldest living brother. I don't think he held any particularly impressive holdings, but he had at least one son, he was a male Capet, and both he and his son seem to have done some substantial campaigning in their lifetimes. I don't know that he had anything outstanding pointing to him, but he might have been a strong compromise candidate.

Henry of Champagne was married to Marie, Louis' eldest daughter. Champagne was enough, as far as I can tell, to make him a powerful magnate in France. Beside that, he had numerous siblings in powerful positions, including a brother who was Archbishop of Reims. He and Marie had a young son (also Henry) who was betrothed to the daughter of the Count of Hainaut (and niece of the Count of Flanders) - in real life, the marriage fell through because she was instead married to King Philip. Here, that cause, at least, won't happen. Henry had fought in the Second Crusade, and Marie is purported to have had a very positive relationship with her brother Richard, future king of England. All of this would seem to amount to a substantial amount of force that Henry could muster in support of either himself or his wife.

In OTL, Henry was being held prisoner in the holy land around this time and (after being ransomed) died in 1181. That puts a damper on his prospects. Of course, if he can see a succession dispute coming up, he might decline to make that trip, and not being captured could increase his life expectancy.

Henry "the Young King" of England was married to Margaret, Louis' third daughter. Margaret was Louis' first daughter not by Eleanor of Aquitaine. While I've not seen any evidence that her sisters were ever held to be illegitimized by the annulment of their parents' marriage, I'm not sure that I would expect that to continue if the question of the French throne came up. Henry, in theory, has the backing of England behind him and his wife (England being ruled by his father, Henry II - in my head, I call this the War of the Four Henrys). Henry (the younger one) seems to have been pretty popular in general. Of course, that didn't extend to his family, and he was at war with his father only a few years before Louis' death, and would be at war with his father and brother Richard again only a few years later, ultimately dying in 1183 of illness, and never having any children. Of course, his death was, to some degree, a fluke - he certainly could have lived longer.

So, the questions, I guess, are:

Peaceful succession or conflict? If the latter, who is likely to have the edge? Are there candidates that I've not thought of?
 
Elective kingship was nothing more than aformal dynastical succcession at this point and since the XIth century* : while its survivance might have some implication, there would be little implication of a dynastical change due to vote (which no longer existed as such : it was essentially a proclamation), and Robert of Dreux is bound to become king, giving dynastical, familial and customary uses; regardless of the size of his holdings (Dreux wasn't a particularily big or wealthy one, but not only it was an old Robertian land but it had some strategical value toward Normandy.

Really, it's not about being a compromise candidate, because you won't have candidacies to begin with, due to the stress on dynastical continuity (both coming from the network of honores favouring the centrality of the king and their lines; and from feudal customs in Northern France).

* The election rite involved (according the account of Philippe I's election in 1059, during his father's reign) first the archbishop of Reims (a lecture of the royal duties), apostolic legates (non necessary but always helpful), "archbishops, bishops, clergy" then various great nobles (which weren't all pairs*, and not all pairs were there), then small nobles and "populous".
 
Last edited:
Actually, having Champagne hold the Kingship means that the King becomes an Angevin puppet due to Eleanor of Aquitaine ties..
 
Elective kingship was nothing more than aformal dynastical succcession at this point and since the XIth century* : while its survivance might have some implication, there would be little implication of a dynastical change due to vote (which no longer existed as such : it was essentially a proclamation), and Robert of Dreux is bound to become king, giving dynastical, familial and customary uses; regardless of the size of his holdings (Dreux wasn't a particularily big or wealthy one, but not only it was an old Robertian land but it had some strategical value toward Normandy.

Really, it's not about being a compromise candidate, because you won't have candidacies to begin with, due to the stress on dynastical continuity (both coming from the network of honores favouring the centrality of the king and their lines; and from feudal customs in Northern France).

* The election rite involved (according the account of Philippe I's election in 1059, during his father's reign) first the archbishop of Reims (a lecture of the royal duties), apostolic legates (non necessary but always helpful), "archbishops, bishops, clergy" then various great nobles (which weren't all pairs*, and not all pairs were there), then small nobles and "populous".
I think the real issue comes after Robert is already dead or enfeeble, say Phillip dies childless before 1190. Then you get the argument of whether the crown follows expected inheritance of noble property [1] (daughters vs nephews arguments) or if it goes to someone of the bloodline agreed/selected by the ranking nobility, or somewhere in between.
My previous lookups showed Louis VII married his daughters to Henry II's sons as part of this succession security in the 1160s. Though he also did the same with the Blois-Champagnes so maybe not.
I agree that in 1180 Robert of Dreux & Braine is a shoe-in being of sound mind, sound body, and most senior male Capet.
Unless of course Louis makes arrangements once he knows he's sonless. This is more likely if Philip was never born so minimising changes to allow the OP would dictate Philip dying. But I believe this death would prompt Louis to call his nobles and bishops together to confirm his succession (this may even create the Pairie in TTL since he's credited with it OTL).

[1] lawyers in 1328 were able to use this to argue about the rights of Joan in John/Louis's succession.
 
I think the real issue comes after Robert is already dead or enfeeble, say Phillip dies childless before 1190. Then you get the argument of whether the crown follows expected inheritance of noble property [1] (daughters vs nephews arguments) or if it goes to someone of the bloodline agreed/selected by the ranking nobility, or somewhere in between.
The argument was a by-product of legalist take on more or less unrelated laws (such as Salic Law which had more or less nothing to do with the crown inheritence). By the time of the PoD, you wouldn't have much more than customs and precedent practices.
Now, if Philippe dies childless in the 1180's, it makes Robert II the obvious successor instead.

Let's assume that Dreux somehow all die of convenencitose, the the Capetians-Courtenay will inherit the succession.

My previous lookups showed Louis VII married his daughters to Henry II's sons as part of this succession security in the 1160s. Though he also did the same with the Blois-Champagnes so maybe not.
Unions with these more or less entered in the category of sanctioning treaties with marriages (sort of symbolical hostages and familiarisation of the nobiliar network) than really securing succession. *
The marriage between Henri the Young and Marguerite of France is basically, as many Plantagenet-Capetian unions, a way to ratify the reconciliation of both sides. The tentatives with other Henri II's sons is part of the "networking and familiarisation" devices, as Louis VII went by the good ol' strategy to support the sons as lors of their own demesnes against the father.

But I believe this death would prompt Louis to call his nobles and bishops together to confirm his succession (this may even create the Pairie in TTL since he's credited with it OTL).
Peerage previously existed, but wasn't really fixed : basically, potentes had their first say and then the petty nobility, and Louis VII mostly systematized it borrowing on Carolingian geste features, as a way to bind potentes and aristocracy to the royal prestige.
He will probably less use them as an elective or registering body, than a proclamative body, more or less as IOTL
 
The argument was a by-product of legalist take on more or less unrelated laws (such as Salic Law which had more or less nothing to do with the crown inheritence). By the time of the PoD, you wouldn't have much more than customs and precedent practices.
Now, if Philippe dies childless in the 1180's, it makes Robert II the obvious successor instead.

Let's assume that Dreux somehow all die of convenencitose, the the Capetians-Courtenay will inherit the succession.
Not so obvious, at the time isn't the Crown still held separate from the Capet fief?
So you'd have a question over whether Louis's daughters/grandsons should inherit Capet territory and title versus their uncle/cousin, and a question over who should be King of the French.
 
Not so obvious, at the time isn't the Crown still held separate from the Capet fief?
The crown was never really tied to the fief, but to the dynasty : by the XIIth century, Capetians already beneficied from the particularities of being a royal line which meant both a special blessing among nbility and their capacity to distribute and networking honors and proximity to royal power.
The question of territorial inheritence isn't really put in question either : you had other exemples of ante-generational succession in France at this point, and most of the troubles were about having various candidates : the specificness of Capetian inheritence as tied to their royal prestige is really going to temper this and allow either Dreux or Courtenay depending on your PoD to inherit main capetian lands.

Even if great nobles don't favour such customary practice for any reason, bishops and archbishops would certainly favour it for the sake of royal prestige and protection.

You mentioned above what Louis could do to prepare the succession, and I think the practive of junior king would be used just for that, altough it would be essentially the case of Robert II or Pierre II rather than for their fathers.
 
The crown was never really tied to the fief, but to the dynasty : by the XIIth century, Capetians already beneficied from the particularities of being a royal line which meant both a special blessing among nbility and their capacity to distribute and networking honors and proximity to royal power.
The question of territorial inheritence isn't really put in question either : you had other exemples of ante-generational succession in France at this point, and most of the troubles were about having various candidates : the specificness of Capetian inheritence as tied to their royal prestige is really going to temper this and allow either Dreux or Courtenay depending on your PoD to inherit main capetian lands.

Even if great nobles don't favour such customary practice for any reason, bishops and archbishops would certainly favour it for the sake of royal prestige and protection.

You mentioned above what Louis could do to prepare the succession, and I think the practive of junior king would be used just for that, altough it would be essentially the case of Robert II or Pierre II rather than for their fathers.
So you're saying even though counties such as Flanders would allow assumption/inheritance via women the Crown of the French at this time wouldn't be able to but instead go to the nearest male Capet no matter less direct than a grandson of Louis VII?
 
So you're saying even though counties such as Flanders would allow assumption/inheritance via women the Crown of the French at this time wouldn't be able to but instead go to the nearest male Capet no matter less direct than a grandson of Louis VII?
Pretty much : dynastical matters alone would lead to this. Note that at this point, Flanders always had male inheritence, but that in the same period, the county was inherited by Robert I who was the uncle of the previous count. Male inheritence was largely the rule in northern France, and even in large part of Southern France (see succession of Guilhèm IV of Toulouse). Alienor assumed the ducal title essentially because there was no real alternative and she still had to trust the duchy to either her husband or her sons.
 
Pretty much : dynastical matters alone would lead to this. Note that at this point, Flanders always had male inheritence, but that in the same period, the county was inherited by Robert I who was the uncle of the previous count. Male inheritence was largely the rule in northern France, and even in large part of Southern France (see succession of Guilhèm IV of Toulouse). Alienor assumed the ducal title essentially because there was no real alternative and she still had to trust the duchy to either her husband or her sons.
But isn't the male line of the House of Poitou in Antioch?
 
But isn't the male line of the House of Poitou in Antioch?
True, but they are too far removed for being considered an alternative. It's why Raimondins distinguished between Tolosan and Tripolitan holdings.
Contrary to CK II's telesuccession, being too far doesn't really make you eligible for inheriting much. Antiochene case was complicated in that the title was inherited by Ramnulfids on the basis of their father-in-law's rights; which could have made them furthermore removed from the Aquitain branch.
 
Pretty much : dynastical matters alone would lead to this. Note that at this point, Flanders always had male inheritence, but that in the same period, the county was inherited by Robert I who was the uncle of the previous count. Male inheritence was largely the rule in northern France, and even in large part of Southern France (see succession of Guilhèm IV of Toulouse). Alienor assumed the ducal title essentially because there was no real alternative and she still had to trust the duchy to either her husband or her sons.
I was thinking mainly of Baldwin IX's daughters versus his brother, and the ensuing arguments between his daughter Margaret's two lines.
And of course I suspect the Anarchy (and maybe HYW) colours our perspective of things.
 
I was thinking mainly of Baldwin IX's daughters versus his brother, and the ensuing arguments between his daughter Margaret's two lines.
You'd notice that, especially for Margaret's case, that while having a certain political power, this power was heavily shared by the countess with the count.

And of course I suspect the Anarchy (and maybe HYW) colours our perspective of things.
Certainly, and I suspect that forgetting that French kingship was both crowned and sacred might play a role there, in distinguishing the perception of royal succession compared to nobiliar houses or English succession.
 
You'd notice that, especially for Margaret's case, that while having a certain political power, this power was heavily shared by the countess with the count.
Oh absolutely.

Certainly, and I suspect that forgetting that French kingship was both crowned and sacred might play a role there, in distinguishing the perception of royal succession compared to nobiliar houses or English succession.
Yeah, the sacral component is something I have difficulty getting my head around.
(I don't think the disagreement between "HRE" and Pope helps matters either.)
Any English sources you can recommend that may help?
 
Elective kingship was nothing more than aformal dynastical succcession at this point and since the XIth century* : while its survivance might have some implication, there would be little implication of a dynastical change due to vote (which no longer existed as such : it was essentially a proclamation), and Robert of Dreux is bound to become king, giving dynastical, familial and customary uses; regardless of the size of his holdings (Dreux wasn't a particularily big or wealthy one, but not only it was an old Robertian land but it had some strategical value toward Normandy.

Really, it's not about being a compromise candidate, because you won't have candidacies to begin with, due to the stress on dynastical continuity (both coming from the network of honores favouring the centrality of the king and their lines; and from feudal customs in Northern France).

I appreciate that elective kingship was by this point effectively a ceremonial thing (hence why I said 'nominally' in the OP). I don't really expect that there would be any sort of election for the throne, but meant rather that if some kind of succession crisis occurred, two ways to avert it would be to either turn the nominal election into an actual election, or to bar women from the succession, thus leaving only Robert (at least of the candidates I had suggested).

The argument was a by-product of legalist take on more or less unrelated laws (such as Salic Law which had more or less nothing to do with the crown inheritence). By the time of the PoD, you wouldn't have much more than customs and precedent practices.

Doesn't being limited to customs and past precedents in some ways make the situation more volatile? That is, I don't believe that there is a precedent in France at this time for a king dying without a male heir. There is, you say (and I believe you), a tradition of male primogeniture in northern France, but couldn't this instance be the case that forms precedent otherwise for the throne (in the reverse of the OTL case where women could inherit noble titles but not the throne itself)?

I guess that what I mean is, I find your argument convincing in that Robert would be the most likely to become king, but I still find it very plausible that in a situation like this, where there really isn't much of a past precedent, you could see someone pushing a claim to the contrary.



You also mentioned Ernst Kantorowicz - I'm looking at his bibliography on Wikipedia. Are you perhaps referring to The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology? I'd be interested in further reading.
 
Well at that point the Salic Law was not yet so firmly estabilished so we have two main candidates for the Crown of France:
1) Robert of Dreux as the male heir of Louis VII
2) his niece Marie of France and her husband Henry of Champagne as she was her father's eldest daughter (the wedding between Louis and Eleanor was annulled but the Pope firmly recognized their daughters as legitimate with the full rights of successions they would have if they parents had remained married or one of them would be widowed)
 
Doesn't being limited to customs and past precedents in some ways make the situation more volatile?
It could, indeed, if you had no longer avuncular lines : but as long junior Capetian branches are still in existence and fairly close to both power and from the main branch, I'm not sure there would be a real issue there.
I agree, tough, that matrilinear claimants could arise : Henri de Champagne or his heirs could try arguing their ascendency for a closer part in the kingdom but I think it would be essentially moot without a significant policy of unions with Capetians-Dreux or Capetians-Courtenay.

That is, I don't believe that there is a precedent in France at this time for a king dying without a male heir.
You had some precedents with Late Carolingians, with Louis III and Carloman. It sets really nothing in stone, because the situation was quite different and potentes perfectly able to choose within a dynasty who they wanted rather than ratify the situation. Still, it could be used (and would likely be so) as pointing how in the case of direct succession failure, the throne goes to a close male successor : at best, but I wouldn't be convinced entierely, they could choose between Dreux or Courtenay.

There is, you say (and I believe you), a tradition of male primogeniture in northern France
Rather male-to-male succession : primogeniture, as in direct inheritance of all titles by the elder son, was never really this systematical even for royally held titles (hence the practices of apanages), and splitted succession isn't unheard of. Even in southern France, this was the main succession practice : there's some cases of the contrary such as the claims of Filippa of Toulouse but she was technically outside the Tolsan succession by the will of her grandfather and Raimond IV was supposed to inherit it. Without the active support of her husband, the duke of Aquitaine, she wouldn't have be able to hold it for some years/

but couldn't this instance be the case that forms precedent otherwise for the throne (in the reverse of the OTL case where women could inherit noble titles but not the throne itself)?
You're entierely right that, would the case arise and the situation makes room for this, there's no real reason that they couldn't give rights to inheritence. That said, giving the really particular charismatic specificities of french kingship, I think you'd have significant obstacles to make a woman inheriting it for herself.

I guess that what I mean is, I find your argument convincing in that Robert would be the most likely to become king, but I still find it very plausible that in a situation like this, where there really isn't much of a past precedent, you could see someone pushing a claim to the contrary.
Someone else pushing their claims is perfectly expectable : but having other people supporting him however... I could see, while not obviously, Henri de Champagne arguing about his closeness to the royal line and negociate for some lands and positions, but not much more IMO.

You also mentioned Ernst Kantorowicz - I'm looking at his bibliography on Wikipedia. Are you perhaps referring to The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology? I'd be interested in further reading.
Yes, beings more about, IRRC, the double nature of the king as a temporal ruler and a spiritual figure as embodiment of the kingdom. This is mostly, tough, a study on late Middle-Ages and not specifically on French royal figure. I can't find much in English, and I doubt "Vivat Rex" was translated (as usual).
 
Top