Capetian marriage alliances leading to unification between France and various other territories?

[WolfBear]

Inspired by @raharris1973's thread about the Hapsburgs not inherting Bohemia and Hungary.

Anyway, in real life, one notable Capetian marriage alliance that resulted in a unification of France with another kingdom was the marriage of Antoine of Bourbon with Queen Jeanne III of Navarre, which produced the future King Henry IV of France, also known as King Henry III of Navarre. This eventually resulted in the formal unification of the Kingdoms of France and Navarre in the early 17th century. Navarre didn't have much territory back then, but it was still a notable achievement for France.

Which additional unifications could France have achieved through Capetian marriage alliances? Obviously Spain was off the table since the War of the Spanish Succession was fought over this in the early 18th century, but which additional kingdoms were actually possible for this?

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Circle of Willis]

Louis VIII 'the Lion' almost became King of England based on his wife's relation to the Plantagenets (she was a daughter of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine) and his opponent being, well, King John. Maybe if John hadn't died when he did and made way for a much more palatable Plantagenet successor in the form of his 9-year-old son Henry III, and/or Louis married the Fair Maid of Brittany (John's niece, who had an even stronger claim to the English throne and was indefinitely kept prisoner by John following her brother Arthur's defeat because of it), you could have an Anglo-French union led from Paris - also bagging Brittany about 250-300 years early if the talks to arrange an Eleanor/Louis marriage didn't fall through.

 

[WolfBear]

Louis VIII 'the Lion' almost became King of England based on his wife's relation to the Plantagenets (she was a daughter of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine) and his opponent being, well, King John. Maybe if John hadn't died when he did and made way for a much more palatable Plantagenet successor in the form of his 9-year-old son Henry III, and/or Louis married the Fair Maid of Brittany (John's niece, who had an even stronger claim to the English throne and was indefinitely kept prisoner by John following her brother Arthur's defeat because of it), you could have an Anglo-French union led from Paris - also bagging Brittany about 250-300 years early if the talks to arrange an Eleanor/Louis marriage didn't fall through.

What about having Francis II of France live longer and having him and Mary, Queen of Scots produce a male heir who will subsequently inherit the French and Scottish thrones and also the English throne upon Elizabeth I's death?

 

[Circle of Willis]

What about having Francis II of France live longer and having him and Mary, Queen of Scots produce a male heir who will subsequently inherit the French and Scottish thrones and also the English throne upon Elizabeth I's death?

Well that's quite temporally removed from the POD I was talking about but sure, sounds like at least the Scottish & French parts could work fairly smoothly. I think there'd be significant domestic opposition to a hypothetical *Jacques I of France & Scotland also becoming King of England and no small amount of pressure to find literally any other Protestant claimant though, IIRC Elizabeth I's reign was when anti-Catholic attitudes in England really hardened - doubt the English of the early 17th century would allow a Franco-Scottish Catholic to rule over them unless he brings with him a successful French Armada. I'm reasonably certain that they'd have been far less enthusiastic than the barons had been for Louis VIII nearly 400 years earlier.

 

[WolfBear]

Well that's quite temporally removed from the POD I was talking about but sure, sounds like at least the Scottish & French parts could work fairly smoothly. I think there'd be significant domestic opposition to a hypothetical *Jacques I of France & Scotland also becoming King of England and no small amount of pressure to find literally any other Protestant claimant though, IIRC Elizabeth I's reign was when anti-Catholic attitudes in England really hardened - doubt the English of the early 17th century would allow a Franco-Scottish Catholic to rule over them unless he brings with him a successful French Armada. I'm reasonably certain that they'd have been far less enthusiastic than the barons had been for Louis VIII nearly 400 years earlier.

Would things have been made much easier had English never become Protestant?

 

[Circle of Willis]

Would things have been made much easier had English never become Protestant?

Yeah I guess, but the best ways to produce an England that stays Catholic than I can think of while still keeping the 16th century somewhat recognizable are 1) one of Mary's pregnancies isn't so phantom after all and she gives birth to an English Habsburg prince, 2) Henry VIII's first son doesn't die in infancy, and 3) the Yorkists win the Wars of the Roses and keep the throne via either Edward V or Richard III, who then have progeny determined to uphold England's reputation as 'Mary's Dowry'. Every single one of these PODs knocks Mary Queen of Scots out of contention for the English throne, and butterflies from the latter two mean she may very well not even be born.

 

[WolfBear]

Yeah I guess, but the best ways to produce an England that stays Catholic than I can think of while still keeping the 16th century somewhat recognizable are 1) one of Mary's pregnancies isn't so phantom after all and she gives birth to an English Habsburg prince, 2) Henry VIII's first son doesn't die in infancy, and 3) the Yorkists win the Wars of the Roses and keep the throne via either Edward V or Richard III, who then have progeny determined to uphold England's reputation as 'Mary's Dowry'. Every single one of these PODs knocks Mary Queen of Scots out of contention for the English throne, and butterflies from the latter two mean she may very well not even be born.

If nothing charges in regards to English royal fertility but Francis II and Mary, Queen of Scots produce a male heir, does Scotland still become Protestant? And if so, would Catholic France actually be willing to form a personal union with a Protestant country?

BTW, it's worth noting that this specific Bourbon was King of Naples in the early 1400s:

James II, Count of La Marche - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Had he and Joanna II of Naples had a son, and had the succession to the French throne still devolved on the Bourbons (with his line being more senior than the Bourbon-Vendome one that was founded by his younger brother Louis, Count of Vendome), could we have seen a France-Naples personal union?

 

[Circle of Willis]

If nothing charges in regards to English royal fertility but Francis II and Mary, Queen of Scots produce a male heir, does Scotland still become Protestant? And if so, would Catholic France actually be willing to form a personal union with a Protestant country?

BTW, it's worth noting that this specific Bourbon was King of Naples in the early 1400s:

James II, Count of La Marche - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Had he and Joanna II of Naples had a son, and had the succession to the French throne still devolved on the Bourbons (with his line being more senior than the Bourbon-Vendome one that was founded by his younger brother Louis, Count of Vendome), could we have seen a France-Naples personal union?

Well I'd imagine the French would try mightily (even more-so than they did historically) to prevent such an outcome. Having an heir would probably harden Mary and Francis' resolve to resist the Treaty of Edinburgh, if their expedition to Scotland still gets placed in a tough spot, considering Mary already didn't want to recognize its terms until absolutely forced to IOTL (long after Francis had died) and having their son inherit two kingdoms of differing religions would further complicate his prospects. England meanwhile can and certainly will support the Scottish Protestants (as it already did IOTL), and if Francis & Mary refuse to tolerate Scottish Protestantism outright or grant it at first but then they or their successors attempt to pull a Fontainebleau later, has the means to turn Scotland into France's own Netherlands. Hell, they might not even have to wait that long: John Knox already despised Mary for remaining committed to Catholicism IRL to the point of openly calling for her death in his sermons, can you imagine how pissed he'd be if he witnesses any equivalent to the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre on her & Francis' watch?

(As I've said before, even if the Tudors' 1603 extinction is made butterfly-proof, I do not believe there is any chance whatsoever that a surviving Francis and Mary can also assert the latter's rights to the English throne without force, and a hell of a lot of it. Becoming subject to a Catholic Franco-Scottish Valois dynasty would IMO be as utterly unacceptable to post-Elizabethan English society as becoming a Habsburg fief would be, I think Parliament would sooner invite a Dutch or Scandinavian prince to become King than accept such an outcome if they can't agree on a local candidate. Thus, Protestant England would linger as a thorn in the Franco-Scots' side until and unless removed by means of a French Armada)

As for Naples - no chance those two would have a son, IMO. Joanna was already 41 when she married James, and the two apparently hated each other to the point that James tried to usurp Joanna & place her under house arrest (since after all she was the queen-regnant of Naples while he was her consort, not king in his own right). That Joanna had no children by her previous husband and many lovers also indicates she was probably just barren to me.

 

[WolfBear]

Well I'd imagine the French would try mightily (even more-so than they did historically) to prevent such an outcome. Having an heir would probably harden Mary and Francis' resolve to resist the Treaty of Edinburgh, if their expedition to Scotland still gets placed in a tough spot, considering Mary already didn't want to recognize its terms until absolutely forced to IOTL (long after Francis had died) and having their son inherit two kingdoms of differing religions would further complicate his prospects. England meanwhile can and certainly will support the Scottish Protestants (as it already did IOTL), and if Francis & Mary refuse to tolerate Scottish Protestantism outright or grant it at first but then they or their successors attempt to pull a Fontainebleau later, has the means to turn Scotland into France's own Netherlands. Hell, they might not even have to wait that long: John Knox already despised Mary for remaining committed to Catholicism IRL to the point of openly calling for her death in his sermons, can you imagine how pissed he'd be if he witnesses any equivalent to the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre on her & Francis' watch?

(As I've said before, even if the Tudors' 1603 extinction is made butterfly-proof, I do not believe there is any chance whatsoever that a surviving Francis and Mary can also assert the latter's rights to the English throne without force, and a hell of a lot of it. Becoming subject to a Catholic Franco-Scottish Valois dynasty would IMO be as utterly unacceptable to post-Elizabethan English society as becoming a Habsburg fief would be, I think Parliament would sooner invite a Dutch or Scandinavian prince to become King than accept such an outcome if they can't agree on a local candidate. Thus, Protestant England would linger as a thorn in the Franco-Scots' side until and unless removed by means of a French Armada)

As for Naples - no chance those two would have a son, IMO. Joanna was already 41 when she married James, and the two apparently hated each other to the point that James tried to usurp Joanna & place her under house arrest (since after all she was the queen-regnant of Naples while he was her consort, not king in his own right). That Joanna had no children by her previous husband and many lovers also indicates she was probably just barren to me.

Excellent analysis; thank you! BTW, what made Mary's son James an acceptable candidate for the English throne?

Also, FWIW, one can have children naturally in one's 40s, but Yeah, based on what you wrote here, I do suspect that Joanna was probably barren.

In addition, what about the possibility of a surviving Charles III, Duke of Bourbon forming a martial alliance with some European royal family and then having his descendants inherit the French throne if the Valois still eventually go extinct? IMHO, it was stupid of him to refuse Louise of Savoy's marriage offer; he could have accepted and then outlived her, with him then being free to marry whomever he wanted while continuing to be on good terms with French King Francis I, Louise of Savoy's son.

 

[Circle of Willis]

Well, on top of inheriting Mary's claim (which made him Elizabeth's closest legitimate living male relative following her death and the extinction of the Tudors) James was Protestant, for starters. He also put in some real effort of his own to build relations with England's leading figures in the lead-up to his ascension to their throne. In general, the man having greater tact & diplomatic ability than his son Charles I seems to have gotten him a long way.

Eh, I can't really fault Charles de Bourbon for his decision. Life was unpredictable at the best of times even for the highborn in his day, as demonstrated by his own being cut short at age 37 - for all he could've guessed, if he did marry Louise and remain loyal to King Francis the butterflies could still have gotten him killed in some other battle (just while fighting for France rather than Charles V), only now he'd be dying while hitched to a woman 14 years his senior. He seems to have had some children with his first wife, Suzanne, who did not survive infancy IRL; if you want the senior Bourbon line to endure, it'd be as simple as just having at least one of them live to adulthood.

 

[WolfBear]

if you want the senior Bourbon line to endure, it'd be as simple as just having at least one of them live to adulthood.

It would have to be a male, since females were ineligible for the French throne and one could also only inherit the French throne through the male line rather than through any females.

 

[WolfBear]

@Circle of Willis Somewhat off-topic, but I also find it interesting that the Valois-Alencon branch could have survived far longer than it actually did. Charles IV, Duke of Alencon was infertile (he and his wife had no children, but his wife had children with her second husband after Charles's death, so the problem was with him rather than with her), but both of his sisters were fertile. So, had one of his sisters been born male instead but without affecting their fertility, then the Valois-Alencon line could have lasted much longer instead of dying out in 1525. This would, of course, have allowed them to inherit the French throne if they would have lasted long enough due to the fact that they were more senior than any of the Bourbons were from an agnatic perspective.

 

[WolfBear]

Well, on top of inheriting Mary's claim (which made him Elizabeth's closest legitimate living male relative following her death and the extinction of the Tudors) James was Protestant, for starters. He also put in some real effort of his own to build relations with England's leading figures in the lead-up to his ascension to their throne. In general, the man having greater tact & diplomatic ability than his son Charles I seems to have gotten him a long way.

Eh, I can't really fault Charles de Bourbon for his decision. Life was unpredictable at the best of times even for the highborn in his day, as demonstrated by his own being cut short at age 37 - for all he could've guessed, if he did marry Louise and remain loyal to King Francis the butterflies could still have gotten him killed in some other battle (just while fighting for France rather than Charles V), only now he'd be dying while hitched to a woman 14 years his senior. He seems to have had some children with his first wife, Suzanne, who did not survive infancy IRL; if you want the senior Bourbon line to endure, it'd be as simple as just having at least one of them live to adulthood.

Question for you: Had both the Valois and Bourbons (including the junior Bourbon-Vendome branch) become extinct in the 1500s or 1600s while the House of Dreux would have survived, would the House of Dreux have inherited the French throne?

House of Dreux - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The House of Dreux's male line became extinct in 1488 in real life with the death of Francis II, Duke of Brittany, but with a bit more luck, their male line could survive for longer, perhaps even for much longer. In this scenario, the House of Dreux would become the seniormost agnatic Capetians upon the extinction of both the Valois and the Bourbons, being descended in the male line from a younger son of French King Louis VI of France. But of course Louis VI died in the early 12th century, so around half a millennium earlier, give or take a bit.

Louis VI of France - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Circle of Willis]

Question for you: Had both the Valois and Bourbons (including the junior Bourbon-Vendome branch) become extinct in the 1500s or 1600s while the House of Dreux would have survived, would the House of Dreux have inherited the French throne?

House of Dreux - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The House of Dreux's male line became extinct in 1488 in real life with the death of Francis II, Duke of Brittany, but with a bit more luck, their male line could survive for longer, perhaps even for much longer. In this scenario, the House of Dreux would become the seniormost agnatic Capetians upon the extinction of both the Valois and the Bourbons, being descended in the male line from a younger son of French King Louis VI of France. But of course Louis VI died in the early 12th century, so around half a millennium earlier, give or take a bit.

Louis VI of France - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You know, you don't need to ask me questions which you've already answered yourself

 

[WolfBear]

You know, you don't need to ask me questions which you've already answered yourself

I haven't answered my own question here, though; I merely said that the Dreux would have had an agnatic claim to the French throne in this scenario, but I didn't actually say that they would have been accepted as French dynasts in such a scenario. The Courtneys were not, after all, though it's also worth noting that the Dreux remained in a prominent position (specifically as Dukes of Brittany) whereas the Courtneyas gradually faded into obscurity over the centuries:

Capetian House of Courtenay - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, Yeah, being an agnatic Capetian did not automatically mean royal dynast status in France. But of course the Dreux were consistently notable over the centuries, similar to the Bourbon-Vendome branch and different from the Courtenays--hence my asking you this question here.

 

[Circle of Willis]

I haven't answered my own question here, though; I merely said that the Dreux would have had an agnatic claim to the French throne in this scenario, but I didn't actually say that they would have been accepted as French dynasts in such a scenario. The Courtneys were not, after all, though it's also worth noting that the Dreux remained in a prominent position (specifically as Dukes of Brittany) whereas the Courtneyas gradually faded into obscurity over the centuries:

Capetian House of Courtenay - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, Yeah, being an agnatic Capetian did not automatically mean royal dynast status in France. But of course the Dreux were consistently notable over the centuries, similar to the Bourbon-Vendome branch and different from the Courtenays--hence my asking you this question here.

You say you aren't answering the question, but continue to expand on the answer you already gave in the previously quoted post. Of course the Dreux would logically succeed to the French throne in this situation, and you just outlined all the reasons why: they're princes of the blood, the seniormost descendants of the Capetians in the male line with the extinction of both the Valois and Bourbons, and quite prominent nobles who rose to become Dukes of Brittany, whose great dukedom outlasted Burgundy before finally being the last such major entity to be incorporated into early modern France.

I don't like sounding flippant, but really, when the deck has been this immensely stacked in favor of a Dreux succession - and you keep pointing out all the ways in which it's being stacked! - I'm genuinely not sure what answer you were expecting out of me beyond some variant of 'of course lol'. As far as I can tell, you would basically need an asteroid dropping on the male Dreuxes or a Plantagenet victory in the HYW to derail their ascension in this scenario.

 

[WolfBear]

You say you aren't answering the question, but continue to expand on the answer you already gave in the previously quoted post. Of course the Dreux would logically succeed to the French throne in this situation, and you just outlined all the reasons why: they're princes of the blood, the seniormost descendants of the Capetians in the male line with the extinction of both the Valois and Bourbons, and quite prominent nobles who rose to become Dukes of Brittany, whose great dukedom outlasted Burgundy before finally being the last such major entity to be incorporated into early modern France.

I don't like sounding flippant, but really, when the deck has been this immensely stacked in favor of a Dreux succession - and you keep pointing out all the ways in which it's being stacked! - I'm genuinely not sure what answer you were expecting out of me beyond some variant of 'of course lol'. As far as I can tell, you would basically need an asteroid dropping on the male Dreuxes or a Plantagenet victory in the HYW to derail their ascension in this scenario.

And I would presume that the reason that the Courtenays were treated differently in real life was already mentioned by me, correct? Specifically the fact that they faded into obscurity over the centuries.

Anyway, Yeah, what you write here certainly makes sense. Maybe I should doubt my own logic less frequently!

I wonder if a France-Portugal union could eventually be achieved if the legitimate agnatic Portuguese branch of the Capetians will survive while all of the other Capetian branches will die out. I mean a full union, not just a personal union. The biggest obstacle would, of course, be Spain being geographically in the way of this. Still, a country could have two large and distant non-contiguous parts: Just look at pre-1971 Pakistan, though perhaps it's not the best example given its subsequent implosion and break-up!