Why were there no queens for France?

[Kobal2]

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

Was it this that lead to the Hundred Years war?

Pretty much, yeah. It certainly led to some, ah, *interesting *diplomatic events which in turn crystallized into a bona fide casus belli. Cue rollicking fun (rape, mass murder, the Plague - good times were had by all).

But really, the war had been brewing for a long time and was bound to happen at one point or another simply because the French aristocracy didn’t like the fact that there were lucrative English holdings on “their” turf (that they didn’t see dime one from) while the English kings resented having to pay homage to the French kings over said holdings despite being, well, fukken Kings of England with a capital K.

The succession kerfluffle while legit in and of itself - as we French really did kinda play fast and loose with the laws… It certainly helped that we had the Pope in our pocket (both metaphorically and physically) at the time to legitimize all that crapola :o - was merely the spark that lit up a century-old powder keg.

[Tamerlane]

@Kobal2

The succession kerfluffle while legit in and of itself - as we French really did kinda play fast and loose with the laws… It certainly helped that we had the Pope in our pocket (both metaphorically and physically) at the time to legitimize all that crapola :o - was merely the spark that lit up a century-old powder keg.

I think you could argue that the succession kerfluffle was more of a spark struck off of the swords hacking at each other over the territorial dispute :). Nobody, including Edward III, seems to have taken his candidacy for the French throne all that seriously. At the beginning of the war(s) it sorta seemed to play out as more of a propaganda ploy and negotiation fodder.

Of course when they got down to Henry V, all bets were off…

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@Kobal2

Pretty much, yeah. It certainly led to some, ah, *interesting *diplomatic events which in turn crystallized into a bona fide casus belli. Cue rollicking fun (rape, mass murder, the Plague - good times were had by all).

But really, the war had been brewing for a long time and was bound to happen at one point or another simply because the French aristocracy didn’t like the fact that there were lucrative English holdings on “their” turf (that they didn’t see dime one from) while the English kings resented having to pay homage to the French kings over said holdings despite being, well, fukken Kings of England with a capital K.

The succession kerfluffle while legit in and of itself - as we French really did kinda play fast and loose with the laws… It certainly helped that we had the Pope in our pocket (both metaphorically and physically) at the time to legitimize all that crapola :o - was merely the spark that lit up a century-old powder keg.

Thanks for the reply. Us Brits mainly know this period of history via Shakespeare(if it’s not the Romans or the Tudors we don’t wish to know). Interestingly, it was around this time that English Kings stopped speaking French as their first language.

I have little doubt both sides played fast and loose with Laws and precedents. If life has taught me one thing it is that humans, and particularly politicians, can self justify almost any action we wish to. If such self justification results in raping female French peasants then that’s an added bonus.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@Tamerlane

I think you could argue that the succession kerfluffle was more of a spark struck off of the swords hacking at each other over the territorial dispute :). Nobody, including Edward III, seems to have taken his candidacy for the French throne all that seriously. At the beginning of the war(s) it sorta seemed to play out as more of a propaganda ploy and negotiation fodder.

Of course when they got down to Henry V, all bets were off…

This is the nagging feeling I have on the matter too. . That both sides could easily have taken the opposite legal stance if that stance benefited them. At least I think this is what you are hinting at.

[Kobal2]

Yes, that too (what’s the point of being aristos if you can’t tell the laws to sit down, shut up and do as they’re told once in a while ? ) but it’s more that both kingdoms were antsy to get **on **with it already, and ready to seize upon any pretext that’d make their side look in the right while also not being “the ones who started it”.

If you want a modern sort-of-equivalent you can sink your teeth into, it was kinda like Dubya and the WMDs : most everybody (that matters) knew full well that it was all a load of bollocks, but not even bothering to put up a smokescreen of righteous bullshit over the war you really really wanna wage… well that’s just Not Done, is it ?

ETA : so in that sense, the Hundred Years War was not so much “The war that was caused by the problematic succession of France” but “The war in search of a pretext that ended up being about the succession of France”.

[Giles]

@Northern_Piper

…
When Edward VI died, there were no close, obvious males to succeed, so Mary I was a strong candidate to avoid re-opening the dynastic struggle. (Note that the closest candidate that some Protestants put forward as an alternative to Mary was also a woman: Lady Jane Grey. )

Once Mary died, the precedent had been established and Elizabeth succeeded as a matter of course. Plus, there still weren’t any close male alternatives - James VI hadn’t been born yet.

Plus, in 1558, the next person in line for the English throne was Mary, Queen of Scots – the teenaged Queen Regnant of Scotland who married the Dauphin that year, and became Queen Consort of France in 1559 for a year (her husband, King Francis II of France, died young). England really did have only women to choose as their monarch in the middle of the 16th century.

[md2000]

@Northern_Piper

Another practical politics reason for Queens regnant in England was that England had gone through a bloody dynastic war, the War of the Roses, and much of the close heirs had been killed off. The Tudors were very distant from the main Plantagent line, and Henry VII succeeded on the “last man standing” rule.

When Edward VI died, there were no close, obvious males to succeed, so Mary I was a strong candidate to avoid re-opening the dynastic struggle. (Note that the closest candidate that some Protestants put forward as an alternative to Mary was also a woman: Lady Jane Grey. )

Once Mary died, the precedent had been established and Elizabeth succeeded as a matter of course. Plus, there still weren’t any close male alternatives - James VI hadn’t been born yet.

@Giles

Plus, in 1558, the next person in line for the English throne was Mary, Queen of Scots – the teenaged Queen Regnant of Scotland who married the Dauphin that year, and became Queen Consort of France in 1559 for a year (her husband, King Francis II of France, died young). England really did have only women to choose as their monarch in the middle of the 16th century.

Of course, the law was changed several times to alter the succession, declaring variously Mary and Elizabeth as illegitimate and not in line to rule. I gather it was recognized that despite the vicious disputes over religion it was an invitation to chaos to try to change the obvious path of succession - Mary, then Elizabeth, then James all got their legitimate turn despite how much it bothered various factions…

(then Oliver.)

[Zebra]

Wow, Bill got history kind of right?

[QUOTE=CANTERBURY]
Then hear me, gracious sovereign, and you peers,
That owe yourselves, your lives and services
To this imperial throne. There is no bar
To make against your highness’ claim to France
But this, which they produce from Pharamond,
‘In terram Salicam mulieres ne succedant:’
‘No woman shall succeed in Salique land:’
Which Salique land the French unjustly gloze
To be the realm of France, and Pharamond
The founder of this law and female bar.
Yet their own authors faithfully affirm
That the land Salique is in Germany,
Between the floods of Sala and of Elbe;
Where Charles the Great, having subdued the Saxons,
There left behind and settled certain French;
Who, holding in disdain the German women
For some dishonest manners of their life,
Establish’d then this law; to wit, no female
Should be inheritrix in Salique land:
Which Salique, as I said, 'twixt Elbe and Sala,
Is at this day in Germany call’d Meisen.
Then doth it well appear that Salique law
Was not devised for the realm of France:
Nor did the French possess the Salique land
Until four hundred one and twenty years
After defunction of King Pharamond,
Idly supposed the founder of this law;
Who died within the year of our redemption
Four hundred twenty-six; and Charles the Great
Subdued the Saxons, and did seat the French
Beyond the river Sala, in the year
Eight hundred five. Besides, their writers say,
King Pepin, which deposed Childeric,
Did, as heir general, being descended
Of Blithild, which was daughter to King Clothair,
Make claim and title to the crown of France.
Hugh Capet also, who usurped the crown
Of Charles the duke of Lorraine, sole heir male
Of the true line and stock of Charles the Great,
To find his title with some shows of truth,
'Through, in pure truth, it was corrupt and naught,
Convey’d himself as heir to the Lady Lingare,
Daughter to Charlemain, who was the son
To Lewis the emperor, and Lewis the son
Of Charles the Great. Also King Lewis the Tenth,
Who was sole heir to the usurper Capet,
Could not keep quiet in his conscience,
Wearing the crown of France, till satisfied
That fair Queen Isabel, his grandmother,
Was lineal of the Lady Ermengare,
Daughter to Charles the foresaid duke of Lorraine:
By the which marriage the line of Charles the Great
Was re-united to the crown of France.
So that, as clear as is the summer’s sun.
King Pepin’s title and Hugh Capet’s claim,
King Lewis his satisfaction, all appear
To hold in right and title of the female:
So do the kings of France unto this day;
Howbeit they would hold up this Salique law
To bar your highness claiming from the female,
And rather choose to hide them in a net
Than amply to imbar their crooked titles
Usurp’d from you and your progenitors
[/QUOTE]

[Giles]

@Zebra

Wow, Bill got history kind of right?

Yes, though he was writing from the Tudor point of view (with a nod to the Stuarts after 1603).

[aceplace57]

I think there were quite a few Queens at the Palace of Versailles.

The stories I’ve read about the French nobility. Let’s just say they weren’t inhibited.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Kobal2

Yes, that too (what’s the point of being aristos if you can’t tell the laws to sit down, shut up and do as they’re told once in a while ? )…

“I don’t want a lawyer who tells me what I can’t do; I want a lawyer who tells me how I can do what I want to do.” - J.P. Morgan (attrib.)

@aceplace57

I think there were quite a few Queens at the Palace of Versailles.

The stories I’ve read about the French nobility. Let’s just say they weren’t inhibited.

See posts 14 and 15.

[Colibri]

@aceplace57

I think there were quite a few Queens at the Palace of Versailles.

The stories I’ve read about the French nobility. Let’s just say they weren’t inhibited.

Moderator Warning

If you’re going to make offensive jokes,* then at least make original ones. Since I’ve already issued a mod note for this, this is an official warning. Don’t do this again. (And in the future, try reading the whole thread.)

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

*I recognize that in some contexts “queen” may not be regarded as offensive, but in origin it is derogatory.

[Colibri]

@aceplace57

I think there were quite a few Queens at the Palace of Versailles.

The stories I’ve read about the French nobility. Let’s just say they weren’t inhibited.

Moderator Warning

If you’re going to make offensive jokes,* then at least make original ones. Since I’ve already issued a mod note for this, this is an official warning. Don’t do this again. (And in the future, try reading the whole thread.)

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

*I recognize that in some contexts “queen” may not be regarded as offensive, but in origin it is derogatory.

[APB]

@Northern_Piper

Another practical politics reason for Queens regnant in England was that England had gone through a bloody dynastic war, the War of the Roses, and much of the close heirs had been killed off. The Tudors were very distant from the main Plantagent line, and Henry VII succeeded on the “last man standing” rule.

When Edward VI died, there were no close, obvious males to succeed, so Mary I was a strong candidate to avoid re-opening the dynastic struggle. (Note that the closest candidate that some Protestants put forward as an alternative to Mary was also a woman: Lady Jane Grey. )

Once Mary died, the precedent had been established and Elizabeth succeeded as a matter of course. Plus, there still weren’t any close male alternatives - James VI hadn’t been born yet.

And it is worth remembering that the French faced a similar problem in its own dynastic wars not so long after. In 1589 many French Catholics were uncomfortable with the idea of the Protestant Henri of Navarre becoming king and the death the following year of the Cardinal de Bourbon left them with no obvious alternative male candidate in the male line. So some members of the Catholic League did begin to argue that they should overturn the Salic law. Had the nearest candidate in the female line not been the daughter of Philip II of Spain and had Henri not converted, who knows, they might actually have been able to do so.

@Zebra

Wow, Bill got history kind of right?

Not really surprising as the speech is mostly just lifted straight from Holinshed.

[aceplace57]

I had not seen or was aware of the ban on discussing queens. It is in no way offensive to my BIL or his friends. They’ve told me some of the best jokes. Loud and proud of who they are. He’s taken my wife and I to several LGBT events over the years We always have a great time. He’s so creative and outrageous when he dresses for the occasion. I love the guy’s attitude. He’s told me many stories of the flamboyant lifestyle by many members of the European royal courts. It was a rare time in history when men could be outrageous in both dress and their sexuality.

My apologies for shocking anyone by making any mention of historical Queen culture.

@Colibri

Moderator Warning

If you’re going to make offensive jokes,* then at least make original ones. Since I’ve already issued a mod note for this, this is an official warning. Don’t do this again. (And in the future, try reading the whole thread.)

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

*I recognize that in some contexts “queen” may not be regarded as offensive, but in origin it is derogatory.

[Colibri]

@aceplace57

I had not seen or was aware of the ban on discussing queens. It is in no way offensive to my BIL or his friends.

Moderating

It’s completely irrelevant whether it’s offensive to your personal acquaintances. When making jokes here, you have to understand that you’re not speaking just to your friends and relatives. You are speaking to all our thousands of members, some of whom may not view the term the way you do. As I said, I am aware that in some contexts it may not be derogatory, but in origin it is. There is no ban on “discussing queens” in the appropriate context here. This doesn’t mean you can just toss it out in GQ as a joke on an unrelated subject.

Any further discussion on this subject should be taken to ATMB.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Mk_VII]

@Elendil_s_Heir

A minor plot point in Jeffrey Archer’s excellent political novel First Among Equals is the birth of twins to a British titled couple. The first born is a dullard, while the second is very sharp. The dullard inherits the title and lounges about the family’s stately home to the end of his days; the smart younger brother goes into politics and does very well for himself.

A similar plot point is the basis of Howard Sturgis’s novel Belchamber (1904) in which the considerably more popular and rakish younger son looks on, with considerable bitterness, while the bookish academic elder son, who would much rather stay in academia, has to inherit the title and estates.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Sure. And it’s all the more galling (at least initially) to the younger, smarter son in the Archer novel because the older son is older - came into the the world first - only by a matter of seconds.