WI: Plantagenets had the Capetian heir assasinated

I mean what if a Plantagenet had the Capetian heir(s) of France assassinated while the other branches such as the Hungarian, Occitan and Sicilian branches of the Capet are busy in other things what will happen.
 
I can't think of a single time in history when one King paid to have another King assassinated. When rivals to the same throne were captured they could...go missing, yes. But I honestly don't recall any King being murdered on another King's orders, not by an assassin. The closest I can think of is Louis I of Orleans killing John the Fearless of Burgundy in cold blood but that was different - for a start, they were both vying for the same throne, and so did not believe the other were a rightful King, and secondly it was by Louis' own hand, not by an assassin. Even then it provoked outrage and was a highly dubious action.

I don't think there's any way this would happen. If this kind of thing happened, half the Kings in history would've been murdered by their opponents.
 
It was thought by the Armagnacs, that John the Fearless had Louis of Orléans assassinated; which obviously was denied by the Burgundians, but John the Fearless at the very least seemed guilty.
Even though the Dauphin was present at the assassination of John the Fearless and didn't do anything to prevent it, the Dauphin did not personally participate in it. The Dauphin just like John the Fearless after the assassination of Louis of Orléans denied and apologized for it, but the Burgundians responded by joining forces with England (which for other reasons was also welcomed by their merchant towns). One of the consequences of this assassination was that it had turned the son of John the Fearless , Philip the Good and the house of Valois Burgundy into rivals and enemies of the main and Orléans branches of the house of Valois, this rivalry* was later inherited by the Habsburgs (Philip the Fair, Charles V etc.). (They reconciled as enemies, but they certainly remained rivals.)
Another consequence was that the Burgundians started to improve their relations with Holy Roman Empire and began contemplating the possibility of a royal crown (even though some of the fiefs they controlled did have such traditions before that).
Furthermore Philip the Good began to use 'Par la Grâce de Dieu/ Bij de Gratie Gods' (by the grace of God), which came from his possessions in the Holy Roman Empire (at least Lothier, Brabant & Limburg), but in the French context was seen as the privilege of the sovereign.
 
Last edited:
I'm a little confused here. It was John the Fearless who had Louis of Orléans assassinated, and he not only admitted it but even boasted about it. Neither was in any case a king. The comparable case that leaps to my mind is Philip II of Spain offering a huge reward to anyone who would assassinate William the Silent. Philip lucked out twice, as someone did it but was caught and executed in an indescribably brutal manner, so Philip didn't even have to pay up. William the Silent wasn't a king either, but he was a monarch of sorts.

But in general if a monarch was assassinated (it was virtually an occupational hazard in Scotland) it was by his own people, it is true. Perhaps kings hesitated to order the murder of other kings, as two people could play that game, also as it tended to dent the sacrosanct aura of kingship and thus removed a little protection from themselves.
 
I can't think of a single time in history when one King paid to have another King assassinated. When rivals to the same throne were captured they could...go missing, yes. But I honestly don't recall any King being murdered on another King's orders, not by an assassin. The closest I can think of is Louis I of Orleans killing John the Fearless of Burgundy in cold blood but that was different - for a start, they were both vying for the same throne, and so did not believe the other were a rightful King, and secondly it was by Louis' own hand, not by an assassin. Even then it provoked outrage and was a highly dubious action.

I don't think there's any way this would happen. If this kind of thing happened, half the Kings in history would've been murdered by their opponents.

Sigebert I of the Franks by agents of Chilperic I. Also within France itself, William Longsword of Normandy was assassinated by agents of Arnulf I of Flanders. Finally, if the Old Man of the Mountain is considered an independent ruler (which is reasonable because no-one could really control his actions) then the original Assassins provide a few more examples.

None of which is all that crucial -- the assassination POD on this thread can be a first of a kind.
 
I'm a little confused here. It was John the Fearless who had Louis of Orléans assassinated, and he not only admitted it but even boasted about it. Neither was in any case a king. The comparable case that leaps to my mind is Philip II of Spain offering a huge reward to anyone who would assassinate William the Silent. Philip lucked out twice, as someone did it but was caught and executed in an indescribably brutal manner, so Philip didn't even have to pay up. William the Silent wasn't a king either, but he was a monarch of sorts.

But in general if a monarch was assassinated (it was virtually an occupational hazard in Scotland) it was by his own people, it is true. Perhaps kings hesitated to order the murder of other kings, as two people could play that game, also as it tended to dent the sacrosanct aura of kingship and thus removed a little protection from themselves.

Louis of Orléans and John the Fearless certainly were also monarchs of sorts, William the Silent, though one of leaders of the rebellion only was a ''monarch'' in his own possessions (prince of Orange, count of Nassau, baron of Breda etc. (all of which were fiefs or fiefs of fiefs (Breda is a part of Brabant) of the Holy Roman Empire) and up to the point of his assassination he had refused any offer by the estates of Holland and Zeeland to become their count. Whether this would have changed if he wasn't assassinated in uncertain.
 
Sigebert I of the Franks by agents of Chilperic I. Also within France itself, William Longsword of Normandy was assassinated by agents of Arnulf I of Flanders. Finally, if the Old Man of the Mountain is considered an independent ruler (which is reasonable because no-one could really control his actions) then the original Assassins provide a few more examples.

None of which is all that crucial -- the assassination POD on this thread can be a first of a kind.

The question then is what inspires it. It doesn't ring right for someone to just wake up thinking that the murder of kings is a good idea.

Also, what inspires it may say something about the circumstances and consequences.
 
kasumigenx said:
I mean what if a Plantagenet had the Capetian heir(s) of France assassinated while the other branches such as the Hungarian, Occitan and Sicilian branches of the Capet are busy in other things what will happen.

As was pointed out, the thought of having a King assassinated was a rather difficult decision. Not to mention the Middle Age the King was seen as having his charge bestowed upon him by God : murdering a King could be considered as some sort of Sacrilege. Probably doesn't play much in the decision to murder a King, but it still has some weight in the decision.

Also, what would the Plantagenêt gain by murdering the Capetian heir?
The only time it would be benefical would be the assassination of Philip II before he ascends the throne : that leaves Louis VII without a male heir. Henry the Young King would have a low claim on the French crown through his wife Margaret (but wouldn't be able to have children) and Richard is fianced to Alaïs : the marriage could also give him a low claim. But there are still more claimants to the throne (the House of Blois-Champagne has two candidates in Henri I of Champagne and Theobald V of Blois, and there is also the case of Robert I of Dreux, Louis VII's younger brother and nearest male relative).

Besides, even with the other branches of the Capetians occupied elsewhere, they would still find time to have the French Crown on their heads. Even the smallest crown can be pretty attractive, and France is a rather big crown...

Bee said:
Sigebert I of the Franks by agents of Chilperic I.

More exactly by agents of Chilperic I's wife, Fredegund. She was quite a nasty woman and got quite a number of people assassinated (including her own husband according to some I think).
 
Besides, even with the other branches of the Capetians occupied elsewhere, they would still find time to have the French Crown on their heads. Even the smallest crown can be pretty attractive, and France is a rather big crown...

They can be preoccupied in other land and because the remaining Capets are HRE Vassals or affiliated to HRE like Naples and Hungary, but having the Plantagenêts on the throne that is allied to HRE, I think the remaining Capets will think twice before thinking on getting the throne of France.
 
They can be preoccupied in other land and because the remaining Capets are HRE Vassals or affiliated to HRE like Naples and Hungary, but having the Plantagenêts on the throne that is allied to HRE, I think the remaining Capets will think twice before thinking on getting the throne of France.

Why? The HRE, unless things have gone massively differently than OTL, is not going to be able to stop them.

Not to mention that assassinating the heir/s doesn't automatically equal taking and holding the throne. Life is rarely that simple.
 
Top