WI: Louis X Recovers?

[Kellan Sullivan]

Since @Space Oddity has a good TL going about Jean le Posthume surviving, I was wondering about his father, Louis X.

I don't know much about him, but say Louis lives at least as long as his father (in other words to the age of 46, ruling France for 22years instead of 2). Even if his son were to still die in infancy, I would imagine that he and Clemence would have more kids?

How would a longer reign look for him? Would he find a way to disinherit his daughter from his first marriage? What would/was his relationship with his sister, the queen of England like? And what would he do about his nephew (Edward III) if he doesn't behave himself? Is war with England a given? And what of the situation in France? Louis was responsible for abolishing serfdom and slavery in France as well as readmitting the Jews, would this help him or harm in the long run?

 

[The Professor]

How would a longer reign look for him?

Unclear.

Would he find a way to disinherit his daughter from his first marriage?

He wouldn't need to, the crowns of both France and Navarre would go to his eldest son. Navarre allowed female succession only in the absence of any brothers.

What would/was his relationship with his sister, the queen of England like?

I can't recall tbh but I suspect he'll try to use her to control Edward.

And what would he do about his nephew (Edward III) if he doesn't behave himself?

Same as he would any other vassal.

Is war with England a given?

No, but I expect some sort of conflict involving England when Edward as Duke of Aquitaine tries to be more autonomous than Louis likes.

And what of the situation in France? Louis was responsible for abolishing serfdom and slavery in France as well as readmitting the Jews, would this help him or harm in the long run?

Depends on the nobility tbh.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

@The Professor in what way do you mean that any future reign's outlook would be unclear?

 

[The Professor]

@The Professor in what way do you mean that any future reign's outlook would be unclear?

Depends highly on his kids, what Edward does, how the nobility manoeuvre to gain as much power as possible, etc.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

But the only certainty that plays out as a result of this is that you at least pushed back the HYW for a good ten years minimum. Or it could happen sooner, the whole bloody conflict was the typical "France wants Aquitaine" deal.

 

[minifidel]

But the only certainty that plays out as a result of this is that you at least pushed back the HYW for a good ten years minimum. Or it could happen sooner, the whole bloody conflict was the typical "France wants Aquitaine" deal.

Well, it was more of an "England wants France" deal, as Aquitaine was already technically a vassal of France.

 

[Tonifranz]

But the only certainty that plays out as a result of this is that you at least pushed back the HYW for a good ten years minimum. Or it could happen sooner, the whole bloody conflict was the typical "France wants Aquitaine" deal.

And that "France wants Aquitaine" war actually happened. See War of Saint Sardos. Where the French easily invaded Acquitaine and took control in only seek weeks. Which goes to show that a war over Acquitaine without the English king claiming the French throne would be one-sided in favor of the French.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Depends highly on his kids, what Edward does, how the nobility manoeuvre to gain as much power as possible, etc.

Fair enough.

But the only certainty that plays out as a result of this is that you at least pushed back the HYW for a good ten years minimum. Or it could happen sooner, the whole bloody conflict was the typical "France wants Aquitaine" deal.

Given Louis' whole thing over Flanders, I could see there being a war with Aquitaine sooner than later perhaps. I'm not sure how rich Aquitaine was compared with Flanders, but it could end up with a disagreement between landlord (Louis) and tenant (Edward)

And that "France wants Aquitaine" war actually happened. See War of Saint Sardos. Where the French easily invaded Acquitaine and took control in only seek weeks. Which goes to show that a war over Acquitaine without the English king claiming the French throne would be one-sided in favor of the French.

Interesting. Am I a horrible person for wishing that France can throw the English out before the English have even had chance to finish unpacking? Sure they'll still eyeball each other angrily over the channel, and they'll probably come to blows in the Low Countries, but seeing Edward III maneuvre WITHOUT ANY French territory would be fun to see IMHO.

Of course, seeing Edward II survive instead of Queen Isabelle (say she dies in the birth of Edward III or the next pregnancy, and Ed2 remarrying to a not French girl) could make for fun times.

 

[alexmilman]

And that "France wants Aquitaine" war actually happened. See War of Saint Sardos. Where the French easily invaded Acquitaine and took control in only seek weeks. Which goes to show that a war over Acquitaine without the English king claiming the French throne would be one-sided in favor of the French.

But this happened mostly because Edward II was extremely passive leaving his French territories without any help. Not that he demonstrated any military genius (or anything worthy of mentioning) in his war with Scotland.

His son was a seriously different figure and, even without a claim to the French crown, he could get English enthusiastic enough with a perspective of looting and support of his ducal rights in Aquitaine ("cheap Bordeaux wine is necessary to England's well-being!" would be a popular slogan because it was true), return of Normandy, restoring English influence in Brittany or any other reason he could come with, ideological part was clearly a remote second to the looting.

IMO, the claim of the French throne was even somewhat detrimental for the English activities. It is rather difficult to endear you potential subjects by looting and murdering them while the same activities could force a king of France to certain concessions where it did matter (Aquitaine, Brittany and perhaps even Normandy): giving up a crown is one thing but confirming that Ed is a duke of <whatever> and to somewhat ease the issues related to the homage is a completely different story. At that time the English had a clear tactical advantage in their military system and it would work better for the
"minimalist scenario" than for one in OTL: it was rather unrealistic for the English to conquer France but quite realistic to try to loot it (with the help of the French) to a degree that would force King of France to make territorial and legalistic compromises.

 

[alexmilman]

Fair enough.

I'm not sure how rich Aquitaine was compared with Flanders, but it could end up with a disagreement between landlord (Louis) and tenant (Edward)

At that time Aquitaine was quite vital for England as a supplier of a cheap high-quality booze (Bordeaux wines) available even to the lower classes. Eventual defeat in the 100YW forced English to switch either to the more expensive foreign wines (mostly from Portugal) or, in the case of the lower classes, to ale. As you can see, this had a clearly negative impact on a quality of life.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

Well, it was more of an "England wants France" deal, as Aquitaine was already technically a vassal of France.

No it started as a "France wants Aquitaine deal" the whole conflict started because Philip VI wanted to find an excuse to kick England off the continent (even though it wasn't the case initially), the whole "England wants France deal" only became a thing as a consequence of "France wants Aquitaine."

 

[Joseph890]

I’m going to summarize the relationship between the kings of France and England. The English always wanted less French control over Normandie and Aquitaine. The French wanted those lands to be in the hands of French nobility not the kings of England because English always tried to undermine their support. I also think money was also involved.

 

[The Professor]

I’m going to summarize the relationship between the kings of France and England. The English always wanted less French control over Normandie and Aquitaine. The French wanted those lands to be in the hands of French nobility not the kings of England because English always tried to undermine their support. I also think money was also involved.

Actually it's more accurate to say:
The Kings of England always wanted less Royal French control over Normandie and Aquitaine. The Kings of France wanted those lands to be in the hands of subordinate nobility not the kings of England because that provided an alternate royal authority.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Either way, it would seem a war over Aquitaine is a go at some point in the next 10years.

Louis' dad did a lot of centralizing of the French state, but the Cte de Valois seems to have spearheaded the movement to undo much of that once Philippe le Bel was dead. Would Louis continue with allowing the Feudalists the upper hand, or might he attempt to amass more power for the crown?

 

[alexmilman]

I’m going to summarize the relationship between the kings of France and England. The English always wanted less French control over Normandie and Aquitaine. The French wanted those lands to be in the hands of French nobility not the kings of England because English always tried to undermine their support. I also think money was also involved.

The kings of England lost Normandy in the XIII century: by Treaty of Paris Henry III agreed to renounce control of Maine, Anjou and Poitou, which had been lost under the reign of King John but remained Duke of Aquitaine and was able to keep the lands of Gascony and parts of Aquitaine but only as a vassal to Louis.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

I've been reading on Clemence of Hungary, Louis X's wife, and it would seem that after the death of Louis and then her son, she went somewhat mad (I'm going by her French wiki article). Was this simply grief? Or was it actual insanity? Or merely propoganda by her brothers-in-law? Cause I could see Louis saying something like "first I married a whore, and now I'm married to a madwoman"

 

[alexmilman]

Actually it's more accurate to say:
The Kings of England always wanted less Royal French control over Normandie and Aquitaine. The Kings of France wanted those lands to be in the hands of subordinate nobility not the kings of England because that provided an alternate royal authority.

It did not provide "an alternate royal authority" because these lands (Aquitaine, Normandy was lost in the mid-XIII) had been owned by the kings of England in their capacity of the Dukes of Aquitaine, vassals of the King of France. The general French laws had been applicable to these territories and their population were the subjects of the King of France. the notion that allowed Charles VII to get peacefully a big chunk of the English-held lands: population of the areas unhappy with the administration of Edward the Black Prince had been appealing to their ultimate overlord, King of France (who was much better in using the legal nuances of various forms of homage). Even earlier, Charles IV demanded that Edward II come to Paris to give homage for Gascony and insisted that Edward's administrators in Gascony French officials there to carry out orders given in Paris.

Of course, situation in which an independent king was also a vassal of another king was creating numerous problems on both sides. The Kings of France obviously were not happy to have excessively powerful vassals who tended to deny their authority while the kings of England not always had resources needed for maintaining the independence within their French lands because their English subjects were often reluctant to subsidize their adventures outside England (on the last stage of the 100YW a prevailing opinion in England was that the expenses must be paid by the English-held French territories, which made a defeat just a matter of time).

 

[The Professor]

It did not provide "an alternate royal authority" because these lands (Aquitaine, Normandy was lost in the mid-XIII) had been owned by the kings of England in their capacity of the Dukes of Aquitaine, vassals of the King of France. The general French laws had been applicable to these territories and their population were the subjects of the King of France. the notion that allowed Charles VII to get peacefully a big chunk of the English-held lands: population of the areas unhappy with the administration of Edward the Black Prince had been appealing to their ultimate overlord, King of France (who was much better in using the legal nuances of various forms of homage). Even earlier, Charles IV demanded that Edward II come to Paris to give homage for Gascony and insisted that Edward's administrators in Gascony French officials there to carry out orders given in Paris.

Of course, situation in which an independent king was also a vassal of another king was creating numerous problems on both sides. The Kings of France obviously were not happy to have excessively powerful vassals who tended to deny their authority while the kings of England not always had resources needed for maintaining the independence within their French lands because their English subjects were often reluctant to subsidize their adventures outside England (on the last stage of the 100YW a prevailing opinion in England was that the expenses must be paid by the English-held French territories, which made a defeat just a matter of time).

You misunderstand me. It provided an alternate royal authority precisely because the Duke of Aquitaine was also a King.

 

[alexmilman]

You misunderstand me. It provided an alternate royal authority precisely because the Duke of Aquitaine was also a King.

It seems that I did misunderstand you: which "royal authority" are you talking about? One of the kings of France or one of the kings of England? Anyway, the kings of England did not have any royal authority in France, which leaves authority of the kings of France but what is it "alternate" to?

 

[The Professor]

It seems that I did misunderstand you: which "royal authority" are you talking about? One of the kings of France or one of the kings of England? Anyway, the kings of England did not have any royal authority in France, which leaves authority of the kings of France but what is it "alternate" to?

Would you have preferred the word "opposing" instead? The term meant "alternate authority that happens to be royal" not an "alternative royal authority"