I started watching Le Rois Maudits last night, and listening to the dialogue between Mahaut/Mathilde, Css of Artois and her nephew, Robert, sieur de Conches got me thinking.

Two of Mahaut's daughters were married to successive kings of France, and Robert was involved in unsuccessful lawsuits against his aunt to try and reclaim his patrimony. Eventually he went to England after having to jump from seat to seat in the Low Countries due to the king of France's influence.

Now, I'm sure both Robert and Mahaut were capable of being thoroughly reprehensible characters, so I'm not interested in that side of things. What I AM interested in, is the effects of Mahaut's brother (Philippe) surviving his 1298 death (and then outliving their dad, even just by a few months) and no Artesian inheritance for Mahaut and Bob's direct inheritance from his dad.

Thought?
 

Toraach

Banned
It might change much, that example not the anglo-french wars we know from history, but that doesn't meand that there won't be any wars betwen those kingdoms. Also there is a matter there still might be the scancal with adultery by princesses.
Ok, so I think that even the lack of the hundred years war won't change much in history in a long run. Because still when we look at England and France in the late 15th century, what we see? Centralization of the royal power in France and early absolutism, and in England the monarchy became more english, not "norman", not "french", and parliament slowly but slowly rose to prominence. Even without this was the same outcome is the most probably. The early phase of english parliamentarism was in developend in early XIV century, and centralization of the royal power in France under the Philip the Fair was undergoing.

I reccomend you to read the books, they are much better than the tv series.
 
It might change much, that example not the anglo-french wars we know from history, but that doesn't meand that there won't be any wars betwen those kingdoms. Also there is a matter there still might be the scancal with adultery by princesses.
Ok, so I think that even the lack of the hundred years war won't change much in history in a long run. Because still when we look at England and France in the late 15th century, what we see? Centralization of the royal power in France and early absolutism, and in England the monarchy became more english, not "norman", not "french", and parliament slowly but slowly rose to prominence. Even without this was the same outcome is the most probably. The early phase of english parliamentarism was in developend in early XIV century, and centralization of the royal power in France under the Philip the Fair was undergoing.

I reccomend you to read the books, they are much better than the tv series.

I figure Edward III is going to find some pretext to go to war with France in any case. He doesn't exactly strike me as the pacifistic type. He just exploited a situation that was there IMHO
 
I figure Edward III is going to find some pretext to go to war with France in any case. He doesn't exactly strike me as the pacifistic type. He just exploited a situation that was there IMHO

Exactly. Robert d'Artois and his problems were just adding a dramatic touch to the situation that was already explosive. On one hand there was France in a process of consolidation of the royal power (and, with certain stretch of a truth) national consolidation and OTOH a big and rich area ruled by the dukes who also had been kings of England and, as such, reluctant to be excessively submissive (while steadily losing their territories on a continent). Change of a dynasty in France provided Ed III with a plausible excuse.

The real question was about the physical ability to fight France with any success: France was a much bigger and more advanced country and could raise much more knights ("knight" as in "lance" - individual with the followers) and the English military system has yet to be tested against such an opponent. Of course, it does not look like Ed had a clear strategic or political idea when he started his little adventure: none of his (or his sons) actions moved him closer to the throne of France.
 
Would Mahaut's daughters even marry the sons of the French king, in such a situation? I thought that it was being heiresses of their mother what made them so attractive.
 
It might change much, that example not the anglo-french wars we know from history, but that doesn't meand that there won't be any wars betwen those kingdoms.

Actually, the 100YW was not exactly a war (or series of wars) between Kingdom of France and Kingdom of England but rather wars between the Valois kings of France and their supporters on one side and the kings of England/dukes of Guyenne and their English and French supporters on another. Loyalties of the French participants had been shifting more than once during these wars.

I reccomend you to read the books, they are much better than the tv series.

These specific series are plain horrible compare to the books on which they are based.
 
Bumping this
@Philippe le Bel: What does your Majesty think? Could Philippe d'Artois' survival change anything on the French tableaux? Or would as @Toraach said, things remain mostly the same?
This is all assuming that things develop similarly as OTL, since more than 15 years separate young Philippe's death and the tragedies of Philippe le Bel and his sons. Who is to say that the line wouldn't have been very fruitful and healthy and scandal-free in this TL, without a chance for Edward to claim the throne?

In the very long view the situation develops generally more or less the same (in most universes). There were enormous economic factors pushing for wars between England and France that drown out individual actions. However, Robert d'Artois being able to inherit his county keeps him on the French side. Truly he was a large boon to Edward, a Capet descended fairly recently from kings, one of the closest patrilineal cousins to the king and princes, in Edward's camp supporting Edward's claim. No doubt his refusal of the Valois, and lurid tales of the royal daughters'-in-law scandalous behavior, were welcome boosts to Edward's image/claim.

Without Robert, Edward still has the basis of being my grandson on which to claim the throne if he wanted to, but not really the credulity/impetus. It's more likely that he would have just wished to reassert his rights in Aquitaine/Guyenne as well as maybe becoming duke of Normandy again like his forefathers. I can see Edward's war maybe being gentler and taking longer, more productive short term gains. In the long term though, time is against the English barring some disaster for the French. As royal power continues to centralize and the French monarch becomes stronger, France's 10 to 1 (some sources say as high as 15 to 1) advantage in population will really begin to tell.
 
Assuming things go as OTL, just with Robert becoming Cte d'Artois in 1305/6:

Does Robert inheriting suddenly mean that even if he KNEW of the whole Tour de Nesle debacle he wouldn't use it to his advantage? (Not sure how here, since OTL he wouldn't have benefitted much beyond the disgrace of Mahaut which wouldn't necessarily translate into him getting Artois back. But OTL he was driven by spite, which blinded him to the fact that Mahaut usually had an ace or two up her sleeve). It would reflect poorly on him if he DID reveal the events of the scandal, since (2/3) the girls were his cousins IMO. I'm not saying he'd be favourably inclined towards Jeanne or Blanche, but it wouldn't exactly do him any good to expose them.
 
Top