I'm curious if I'm reading this chart right. Charles the Bold, of Burgundian fame, was married to margaret, sister of King Edward IV. Did he then have a claim to the English throne, or would he have had, if he didn't die messily against the swiss?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Wouldn't he become King when his queen became wife? Or would he only be the wife of the Queen of England?
As you say, he could only succeed if his wife became Queen.
That said there was no such thing as a settled Law of Succession at the time, but the basic way it went was male primogeniture. Unlike France though there was no Salic law equivalent, so it was possible to inherit through the female line.
So Charles' son would be in line, but Charles wouldn't.
That said there was no such thing as a settled Law of Succession at the time, but the basic way it went was male primogeniture. Unlike France though there was no Salic law equivalent, so it was possible to inherit through the female line.
So Charles' son would be in line, but Charles wouldn't.
Might was right around this period, so although he had no direct right, he would have had pseudo legitimacy through his wife. This would have been largely affected by the survival of any of Margarets brothers who all had precedence (last to die was Richard III at Bosworth in 1485).
AFAIK, two hundred years later William of Orange (William III) became King despite having no direct personal claim. It was his wife who was a member of the Stuart dynasty.
Another two hundred years later, Queen Victoria's husband, Albert, was Prince Consort rather than king. These differences may be partially due to the difference in prevailing attitude to a woman monarch.
AFAIK, two hundred years later William of Orange (William III) became King despite having no direct personal claim. It was his wife who was a member of the Stuart dynasty.
Another two hundred years later, Queen Victoria's husband, Albert, was Prince Consort rather than king. These differences may be partially due to the difference in prevailing attitude to a woman monarch.
Mary first of all demanded her husband to be king (when english diplomats had asked her to become queen). Second William 3 was a nephew of Charles 2 so he was of english royal blood (not sure what his exact position was in the line). Thirdly he invaded England and when James ran there was no alternative.
So he had as much rights as the Tudors.
I also believe that William III was already related to the Royal Family somehow.
However, the Stuart Family at that time had one rather critical problem that led to that situation - a lack of heirs.
However, the Stuart Family at that time had one rather critical problem that led to that situation - a lack of heirs.
William 3 was son of Mary Stuart, sister of Charles 2 if memory serves me correctly.
That's what I suspected, thanks. Mind, Charles would have been in no position to do this, since he had to fight the Swiss, but still interesting.
Indeed, I suppose if you much about with the history of the Wars of the Roses - and make Charles' son was a little more competent, you could develop a nice alternate history.
Do it after Bosworth. Charles's son was around, unless you mean Phillip's, and hence Charles the Bold himself.
Charles could have also mucked about in the imperial election of 1493, and probably gotten the crown of burgundy/lotharingia then.
Hmm... A rhenish-flemish-English superstate.
Let the World Tremble!
The son of the marriage would have inherited Burgundy. Edward IV of England had a son...but also brothers (Clarence and Gloucester).
Yes, but post Bosworth, Edward IV, all his brothers, and his sons were dead (safe to assume the Princes in the Tower were dead).
This would have left any male issue of Charles and Margaret as a (the?) Yorkist heir to the throne. I think he certainly would have been a closer fit to recent kings than Henry Tudor.
However, this brings up larger counter factual questions, especially regarding the political triangle of Burgundy/France/England relationships.
This would have left any male issue of Charles and Margaret as a (the?) Yorkist heir to the throne. I think he certainly would have been a closer fit to recent kings than Henry Tudor.
However, this brings up larger counter factual questions, especially regarding the political triangle of Burgundy/France/England relationships.
Edward IV had a daughter (Elizabeth of York) who would have had precedence over any issue of Charles the Rash and Margaret of York. The Lancastrian victor of the War of the Roses, Henry VII, married Elizabeth of York; hence the use of the famed "Tudor Rose", which combines the white and red roses of both Lancastrian and Yorkist factions. The current royal family is descended from the daughter of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, Margaret Tudor, and Margaret's husband James IV of Scotland.
Given that Charles the Rash and Margaret of York were childless, it's moot anyway. Charles's heir was his daughter Mary, whose mother was Charles' first wife Isabelle Bourbon
As for William of Orange, he was either third or fourth in line for the throne of England, by virtue of his mother Mary Stuart, sister to both James II and Charles II and daughter of Charles I. Preceding William were James II two daughters, Mary (William's wife and first cousin) and Anne Stuart. Technically preceding all three was 'James III', James II's son, whose birth and potential Catholic succession sparked the Glorious Revolution, deposing James II and installing 'William and Mary'.
Hmm, interesting. Would Charles have pushed for his son to gain the throne of England, or would he have let things lie? If he survived, its doubtful he would have gone along with the marriage of his daughter to Maximillian, so lets substitute uh... Charles of Berri, the son of Charles VII.
Now he has one son with a claim to England, and a grandson with a claim to France. Where do things go from there? Assuming he dies in 1501, he still has a few years to get mixed up in all manner of shenanigans. Knowing Charles, he'd probably try to get both on their respective thrones, and end up being eaten by gulls under the cold cliffs of Dover.
Now he has one son with a claim to England, and a grandson with a claim to France. Where do things go from there? Assuming he dies in 1501, he still has a few years to get mixed up in all manner of shenanigans. Knowing Charles, he'd probably try to get both on their respective thrones, and end up being eaten by gulls under the cold cliffs of Dover.
...and what if our Yorkist heir - lets call him William - was married to Lady Anne Plantagenet - the younger sister of Elizabeth of York? Daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville? How would that affect things?
Not much I imagine, as Anne's claim is lesser than Elizabeths. But is Williams claim through his mother stronger than the Lancastrian Henry Tudors? It would seem so.
Of course, this all depends on whether our William can marry Lady Anne. They are cousins after all. How would that have been taken? If it is 'too much', possibly try for a marriage to Richard III's granddaughter, Elizabeth. That might be more 'acceptable'.
Charles already helped get Edward IV back into power, even though he's Lancastrian by rights. Lancastrians wont help versus the French though, so he's Yorkist when it comes to the War of the Roses.
This is all besides the point though: If Charles the Bold were still alive, would Richard III even usurp the throne?
Not much I imagine, as Anne's claim is lesser than Elizabeths. But is Williams claim through his mother stronger than the Lancastrian Henry Tudors? It would seem so.
Of course, this all depends on whether our William can marry Lady Anne. They are cousins after all. How would that have been taken? If it is 'too much', possibly try for a marriage to Richard III's granddaughter, Elizabeth. That might be more 'acceptable'.
Charles already helped get Edward IV back into power, even though he's Lancastrian by rights. Lancastrians wont help versus the French though, so he's Yorkist when it comes to the War of the Roses.
This is all besides the point though: If Charles the Bold were still alive, would Richard III even usurp the throne?