Question on the English claim of France's throne

[Makemakean]

I've been trying to find out a little about the reasoning that the British monarchs used to continue to claim the throne of France after the Hundred Years' War, but very little in clear terms is coming up.

Now, I've been trying to make sense of the English claims to the throne of France, but already at Richard II, you find yourself entering a maze, regarding how you are to interpret the succession. Did Richard II abdicate his French crown to Henry IV too (presupposing it was his), or did it stay with him and at his death go to Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March? If you go by the former, then you could claim that Henry IV and Henry V were legitimate French monarchs, but the situation then becomes a bit tricky when Henry V is named heir to the French crown in the Treaty of Troyes. How can he become heir to something that was already his? And if you go by the latter, then you interestingly end up having Richard, 3rd Duke of York, becoming king of France eventually.

Exactly how Henry VII could have claimed it is a mystery to me, seeing his connection to the Plantagenet was an illegitimate one, his great-grandfather being a bastard son of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster. Even if we are to say that perhaps Henry VIII had a genuine claim through his mother Elizabeth of York, there is still the problem of both Arthur, Prince of Wales and Henry VIII being born after the death of Edward V, and the question becomes whether or not the throne can be vacant in Edward III:s view while we wait for the woman who cannot inherit it to give birth to a son that can. As far as I can tell, Edward III did not say that after Louis X of France's death and John I "the Posthumous", they should have waited for Joan II of Navarre to give birth to a son who then would have been the rightful king of France (indeed, if this had been the case then England could never have claimed the throne since it would have gone to Charles II of Navarre, but I regress)

Anyway, I sort of get lost somewhere there. If someone could help with with that, I'd be grateful.

Also, if you could please inform me of how the Hanoverians could claim the throne of France, I'd be very glad. I mean, the Act of Settlement doesn't seem to mention the throne of France, and I'm kind of curious as to whether or not English legal jurisprudence considers Parliament to have the right to set up religious tests for holding offices in other countries' governments. If they do, then why on Earth have they never used it for anything better than this?

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Well after the Lancastrians the claim became a mere part of the titles of the British Sovereign, like the Dukes of Savoy claiming Cyprus or the various Dynasties claiming Jerusalem. Empty but they still continued to claim it.

 

[kasumigenx]

I've been trying to find out a little about the reasoning that the British monarchs used to continue to claim the throne of France after the Hundred Years' War, but very little in clear terms is coming up.

Now, I've been trying to make sense of the English claims to the throne of France, but already at Richard II, you find yourself entering a maze, regarding how you are to interpret the succession. Did Richard II abdicate his French crown to Henry IV too (presupposing it was his), or did it stay with him and at his death go to Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March? If you go by the former, then you could claim that Henry IV and Henry V were legitimate French monarchs, but the situation then becomes a bit tricky when Henry V is named heir to the French crown in the Treaty of Troyes. How can he become heir to something that was already his? And if you go by the latter, then you interestingly end up having Richard, 3rd Duke of York, becoming king of France eventually.

Exactly how Henry VII could have claimed it is a mystery to me, seeing his connection to the Plantagenet was an illegitimate one, his great-grandfather being a bastard son of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster. Even if we are to say that perhaps Henry VIII had a genuine claim through his mother Elizabeth of York, there is still the problem of both Arthur, Prince of Wales and Henry VIII being born after the death of Edward V, and the question becomes whether or not the throne can be vacant in Edward III:s view while we wait for the woman who cannot inherit it to give birth to a son that can. As far as I can tell, Edward III did not say that after Louis X of France's death and John I "the Posthumous", they should have waited for Joan II of Navarre to give birth to a son who then would have been the rightful king of France (indeed, if this had been the case then England could never have claimed the throne since it would have gone to Charles II of Navarre, but I regress)

Anyway, I sort of get lost somewhere there. If someone could help with with that, I'd be grateful.

Also, if you could please inform me of how the Hanoverians could claim the throne of France, I'd be very glad. I mean, the Act of Settlement doesn't seem to mention the throne of France, and I'm kind of curious as to whether or not English legal jurisprudence considers Parliament to have the right to set up religious tests for holding offices in other countries' governments. If they do, then why on Earth have they never used it for anything better than this?

Tudors are the descendants of Catherine of Valois, perhaps the Tudors could use that as their reason for their claim to France

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Tudors are the descendants of Catherine of Valois, perhaps the Tudors could use that as their reason for their claim to France

But they claimed the throne from the House of Capet, not Valois.

 

[Makemakean]

Tudors are the descendants of Catherine of Valois, perhaps the Tudors could use that as their reason for their claim to France

Kind of odd, seeing that the whole thing started with Edward III boldly declaring that the House of Valois did not have a right to the throne.

 

[Velasco]

I feel like the various threads in which this has been explained should be stickied..

For the millionth time: representation. Philippa of Clarence's father died before her so she (and her descendants) were passed over and always ranked lower than the princes of the blood - John of Gaunt, Henry Bolingbroke, York and Gloucester. For similar reasons Edward claimed the throne as the male nephew of the last three Capetian Kings, with precedence over a female niece (Joan of Navarre) recognizing that Navarre's succession was determined by primogeniture alone.

Furthermore the crowns of England and France were united, indivisibly, when Charles disinherited the Dauphin (as a bastard/traitor) and adopted Henry V as his son. As Henry died first, this only came into effect under his son, Henry VI. As luck would have it, the Tudors were not only the senior heirs of Henry V, they also descended from Charles' daughter Catherine de Valois, sharing the double Capetian descent which was such a big part of the would-be union's propaganda.

The Tudors could also claim the Lancastrian throne by proximity of blood, as nephew of the last Lancastrian king.

The Beauforts were legitimized, which is different to illegitimate. Attempts were later made to bar them from the throne, which indicates in itself that their birth alone wasn't too much of an obstacle and further measures had to be taken. A point mooted either way by the victory of Henry VII at Bosworth, his marriage to the next senior heir (in whom the Clarence and York lines united), the Papal bull and Acts of Parliament establishing him as rightful King. The Hanoverians would then be the heirs of the united crowns of England and France - who had in the mean time broken with Rome - as the senior heirs capable of inheritance in accordance with the laws of the realm(s?).

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Kind of odd, seeing that the whole thing started with Edward III boldly declaring that the House of Valois did not have a right to the throne.

Yeah the whole thing was BS really. If Salic law wasn't valid and females can pass their rights to their sons, then the sons of Joan II of Navarre would be the heirs, then the grandsons of Philip V and finally any grandson of Charles V, THEN Edward III.

 

[Just a Rube]

Kind of odd, seeing that the whole thing started with Edward III boldly declaring that the House of Valois did not have a right to the throne.

You're looking for consistency in titles and nobility? Good luck with that.

But more seriously, Henry VIII was probably the last English monarch who seems to have taken the claims to the French throne at all seriously (and even he was able to be easily bought off with just Boulogne). For everyone else, it was just another meaningless title to add to the list.

If you take the position that Edward III was the legitimate king of France, then whoever is ruling England (who obviously claims to be the legitimate heir of Edward III, seeing as he is ruling England), is the legitimate heir of Edward III to all his titles (since the English never accepted the Salic law with respect to the French succession) and thus rightful king of France. The Beauforts were legitimized, so they count as legitimate heirs to both crowns, as do their descendants in the House of Tudor, etc. QED

 

[Makemakean]

I feel like the various threads in which this has been explained should be stickied..

For the millionth time: representation. Philippa of Clarence's father died before her so she (and her descendants) were passed over and always ranked lower than the princes of the blood - John of Gaunt, Henry Bolingbroke, York and Gloucester. For similar reasons Edward claimed the throne as the male nephew of the last three Capetian Kings, with precedence over a female niece (Joan of Navarre) recognizing that Navarre's succession was determined by primogeniture alone.

Furthermore the crowns of England and France were united, indivisibly, when Charles disinherited the Dauphin (as a bastard/traitor) and adopted Henry V as his son. As Henry died first, this only came into effect under his son, Henry VI. As luck would have it, the Tudors were not only the senior heirs of Henry V, they also descended from Charles' daughter Catherine de Valois, sharing the double Capetian descent which was such a big part of the would-be union's propaganda.

Now, now, wait here a minute! You say that Philippa of Clarence' heirs were passed over because her father predeceased her. Then how come it is not a problem that Edward IV died before Elizabeth of York?

Also, is that the wording that the Treaty of Troyes uses, "united, indivisibly"?

The Tudors could also claim the Lancastrian throne by proximity of blood, as nephew of the last Lancastrian king.

The Beauforts were legitimized, which is different to illegitimate. Attempts were later made to bar them from the throne, which indicates in itself that their birth alone wasn't too much of an obstacle and further measures had to be taken. A point mooted either way by the victory of Henry VII at Bosworth, his marriage to the next senior heir (in whom the Clarence and York lines united), the Papal bull and Acts of Parliament establishing him as rightful King. The Hanoverians would then be the heirs of the united crowns of England and France - who had in the mean time broken with Rome - as the senior heirs capable of inheritance in accordance with the laws of the realm(s?).

Yes, but the question is then, could Parliament with the Act of Settlement pass over all eligible Catholic heirs not just for the throne of England, but also for France? That is, did the Parliament of England have authority in France?

 

[Velasco]

Now, now, wait here a minute! You say that Philippa of Clarence' heirs were passed over because her father predeceased her. Then how come it is not a problem that Edward IV died before Elizabeth of York?

Also, is that the wording that the Treaty of Troyes uses, "united, indivisibly"?

Yes, but the question is then, could Parliament with the Act of Settlement pass over all eligible Catholic heirs not just for the throne of England, but also for France? That is, did the Parliament of England have authority in France?

Elizabeth is the daughter of a King. If Lionel of Clarence had been King and died, then Philippa would have been heiress: or if he had a son, and the son was King and died, then Philippa would have been Queen (or her son would inherit). The question of representation is whether a woman could move up one place and take her father's slot - that is, did Philippa become Edward III's "second son" (so to speak) when her father died? In contemporary thinking, no: she was a non-factor and the "second son" became John of Gaunt, to all intents and purposes. With Edward V (I think that's what you mean?) and Richard of York both dying prematurely and without issue, Elizabeth of York is simply left as the heiress: she doesn't "move up" one slot to occupy anyone else's place, she /is/ Edward IV's senior heir.

Not sure on the wording but I do believe the lines of succession were united once and for all (in Henry V and his heirs).

When there existed a "legitimate" Kingdom of France during the English possession of Tournai, it sent representatives to Parliament: presumably had more territory been conquered, we'd see a Parliament of the Union? Not sure on the finer legal points of this but there are some papers out there on Henry VIII's Kingdom of France in Tournai, etc, which you have to pay for to get access.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Now, now, wait here a minute! You say that Philippa of Clarence' heirs were passed over because her father predeceased her. Then how come it is not a problem that Edward IV died before Elizabeth of York?

Also, is that the wording that the Treaty of Troyes uses, "united, indivisibly"?



Yes, but the question is then, could Parliament with the Act of Settlement pass over all eligible Catholic heirs not just for the throne of England, but also for France? That is, did the Parliament of England have authority in France?

Well, for Philippa, I would say its because it was convenient for the rest of the Royal family. They more or less picked and chose when to support full Salic law (which would have excluded Philippa) or the male preference succession that gave females the right to succeed. It was convenient to proclaim Elizabeth of York the heiress of her father, allowing Henry Tudor to unify the claims of Lancaster and York.

As to united indivisibly, I can't find any proof that the treaty specifically said that. It might have been worded differently or interpreted in that regard, but not those specific words.

To the Act of Settlement, that's a good question. Legally no, Parliament didn't have any rights in regard to France. The treaty of Troyes supposedly declared a union of Crowns, not of the countries. It would have been like the 1603-1707 union of England and Scotland. One could argue, not unreasonably, that the French claims of Edward III technically passed to James III & VIII then onwards down the Jacobite succession.

 

[Velasco]

Was Elizabeth ever "proclaimed" heiress to her father? She just was, no? Henry VII was the one sole King (in his eyes), he merely married her in a diplomatic move to neuter the illegal, junior claim of her house.

Need to look it up in greater detail but I do believe the dealings of Charles and Henry specifically dealt with the permanent union of the crowns, to the exclusion of the Valois line of succession: it was from Henry V onwards.

 

[Ladymadchan]

For what's it's worth, Allison Weir has Henry VII granting EoY the title "Duchess of York" before their marriage. According to her, popular opinion (at least of many in country) said that Henry VII was King in right of their marriage. Also she said by the end of Henry VIII's reign, it was much more generally accepted (and acknowledged) and that Henry VII owed his crown to her. Henry VIII even accepted Sir Anthony St. Leger's explanation that Henry VII's title was not perfect until he married her (he had originally said that the King's father had no just title to the realm till he married the daughter of Edward IV and then claimed to be misquoted).

 

[Bee]

Well after the Lancastrians the claim became a mere part of the titles of the British Sovereign, like the Dukes of Savoy claiming Cyprus or the various Dynasties claiming Jerusalem. Empty but they still continued to claim it.

A curious manifestation of this was that when James II had landed in Ireland at the head of an expedition financed by Louis XIV, on his Irish coins he continued to claim that he was the rightful king of France.

 

[Makemakean]

Elizabeth is the daughter of a King. If Lionel of Clarence had been King and died, then Philippa would have been heiress: or if he had a son, and the son was King and died, then Philippa would have been Queen (or her son would inherit). The question of representation is whether a woman could move up one place and take her father's slot - that is, did Philippa become Edward III's "second son" (so to speak) when her father died? In contemporary thinking, no: she was a non-factor and the "second son" became John of Gaunt, to all intents and purposes. With Edward V (I think that's what you mean?) and Richard of York both dying prematurely and without issue, Elizabeth of York is simply left as the heiress: she doesn't "move up" one slot to occupy anyone else's place, she /is/ Edward IV's senior heir.

So, wait, by Edward III:s argument, Elizabeth of York becomes Élisabeth Ier de France?

and Henry specifically dealt with the permanent union of the crowns, to the exclusion of the Valois line of succession: it was from Henry V onwards.

I've been trying to find the documents online somewhere, but still I only come up with nothing.

I'm particularly curious as to what it says will happen when the line of Henry V dies out, which it did with the death of Henry VI of England in 1471. Was the crown then just to pass to the next Plantagenet in line for the throne of England, was it up for the Estates-General to name the new king? (Hugh Capet was after all elected rex Francorum).

When there existed a "legitimate" Kingdom of France during the English possession of Tournai, it sent representatives to Parliament: presumably had more territory been conquered, we'd see a Parliament of the Union?

Well, I do know that Calais had MPs up to 1558, but that was because the Treaty of Brétigny had declared Calais to be under English rule in perpetuity, so it was as part of England, not as part of France in a united kingdom, that Calais sent representatives to Parliament. The constituency of Tournai (in present day Belgium) existed 1513-1519, but the Wikipedia article isn't particularly helpful on that matter:

Tournai was a former constituency of the Parliament of England.

Henry 8 Tournai Groat and Half Groats (Gros) were issued without a portrait of the King but with Henry 8 name these were dated 1513, struck subsequent to the capture of the town in September 1513 from France. These are exceptionally rare (www.petitioncrown.com). These coins are the earliest British dated coins. Tournai remained under English control until October 1518 when Tournai was returned to France on the payment of 600’000 crowns.

The (now Belgian) city of Tournai, Flemish city dependent of the French Crown, was under English rule from 23 September 1513 until it was returned to France in 1519. During part of that time it was represented in the Parliament of England by two members.

An election is known to have taken place in about December 1513. It is not clear if there was any election for the next Parliament in 1515, but that would have been the last opportunity for this community to be represented in the English House of Commons.

Those two are the only continental constituencies that the Parliament of England ever seems to have had.

Annoying, I really felt we were getting somewhere with this! If you could only argue that the Parliament of England is actually the Parliament of the United Kingdom of England and France (it's just that the French doesn't have any MPs), then you could sort of reason that there is some legitimacy to the claim that the Act of Settlement also concerned the rules of succession for the French crown.

 

[EmmettMcFly55]

Elizabeth is the daughter of a King. If Lionel of Clarence had been King and died, then Philippa would have been heiress: or if he had a son, and the son was King and died, then Philippa would have been Queen (or her son would inherit). The question of representation is whether a woman could move up one place and take her father's slot - that is, did Philippa become Edward III's "second son" (so to speak) when her father died? In contemporary thinking, no: she was a non-factor and the "second son" became John of Gaunt, to all intents and purposes. With Edward V (I think that's what you mean?) and Richard of York both dying prematurely and without issue, Elizabeth of York is simply left as the heiress: she doesn't "move up" one slot to occupy anyone else's place, she /is/ Edward IV's senior heir.

It has always been my understanding that no matter what the English government claimed at those times and during the Wars of the Roses and during the Tudor Era, Henry VIII's legitimate right to the throne on his ascension depended on his being heir by male-preference primogeniture. After all, Salic Law had been mooted by the male line going extinct, semi-Salic Law would have pointed to Margaret Plantagenet as heiress, Edward III's interpretation of Salic Law would have pointed to her sons, and only Henry VII's curious semi-Salic claim would have given him the right to the throne, which depended on the curious assumptions that (1) the Beauforts were legitimate and inherited the right to the throne on the death of Henry VI, and (2) that after the death of the last Beaufort, the throne passed to Henry Tudor rather than simply go to the next heir under Salic Law, which would have been Edward IV (the point of semi-Salic Law is that you revert to the female heir only when all branches are extinct, and I can't see why the House of York suddenly wasn't a valid royal branch anymore by succession laws).

So retroactively, that would make the proper succession be:

King William I (1066-1087)
King Robert (1087-1134, son)
King Henry I (1134-1135, brother)
Queen Matilda (1135-1167, daughter)
King Henry II (1167-1189, son)
King Richard (1189-1199, son)
King Arthur (1199-1203, nephew)
Queen Eleanor (1203-1241, sister)
King Henry III (1241-1272, first cousin)
King Edward I (1272-1307, son)
King Edward II (1307-1327, son)
King Edward III (1327-1377, son)
King Richard II (1377-1400, grandson)
King Edmund (1400-1425, first cousin twice removed)
King Richard III (1425-1460, nephew)
King Edward IV (1460-1483, son)
King Edward V (1483-1483, son)
Queen Elizabeth I (1483-1503, sister)
King Henry IV (1503-1547, son)

(I just thought I'd write it all out for clarity).

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

To the Act of Settlement, that's a good question. Legally no, Parliament didn't have any rights in regard to France. The treaty of Troyes supposedly declared a union of Crowns, not of the countries. It would have been like the 1603-1707 union of England and Scotland. One could argue, not unreasonably, that the French claims of Edward III technically passed to James III & VIII then onwards down the Jacobite succession.

Which raises the intersting possibility that, if the plague that struck Paris in the early 1710s had be4en worse and the Bourbons died out, James Stuart and his successors could have been placed on the throne of France in return to accepting their lack of rights to the English throne; a very weird War of French Succession with England supporting them.

Or, if the Bourbons die out in the 1650s and 1660s as could have happened with the right circumstances, there weren't many left then. If that happens, Louis XIII's younger sister was Charles II'd mother. Yeah, the Savoyards would have the better claim being from an older sister, but but as I noted in my TL where a number of houses die out, the winner would just be the one with the biggest army.

 

[Velasco]

So, wait, by Edward III:s argument, Elizabeth of York becomes Élisabeth Ier de France?

I've been trying to find the documents online somewhere, but still I only come up with nothing.

I'm particularly curious as to what it says will happen when the line of Henry V dies out, which it did with the death of Henry VI of England in 1471. Was the crown then just to pass to the next Plantagenet in line for the throne of England, was it up for the Estates-General to name the new king? (Hugh Capet was after all elected rex Francorum).

Well, I do know that Calais had MPs up to 1558, but that was because the Treaty of Brétigny had declared Calais to be under English rule in perpetuity, so it was as part of England, not as part of France in a united kingdom, that Calais sent representatives to Parliament. The constituency of Tournai (in present day Belgium) existed 1513-1519, but the Wikipedia article isn't particularly helpful on that matter:

Those two are the only continental constituencies that the Parliament of England ever seems to have had.

Annoying, I really felt we were getting somewhere with this! If you could only argue that the Parliament of England is actually the Parliament of the United Kingdom of England and France (it's just that the French doesn't have any MPs), then you could sort of reason that there is some legitimacy to the claim that the Act of Settlement also concerned the rules of succession for the French crown.

I need to read up on the matter again, on the matter of Edward III's entail and the argumnts made by Henry IV upon taking the throne, but basically Elizabeth would be the heiress only if her father was the legitimate King - as it stood, Henry Tudor (descending from John Beaufort, [legitimized] son of John of Gaunt) would take precedence over the Yorks (descending from Edmund of York, a younger son of Edward III). The York claim depended on a series of factors: the popular feeling of the "legitimacy" (as opposed to the legality thereof) of the Mortimer claim, as primogeniture heirs, their own political/military clout, the weakness of Lancaster, and the bastard birth of the Beauforts. Even if you take out the Beauforts as being illegitimate, I believe the legal heir would be the King of Portugal, a great...-nephew of Henry IV.

Again, my understanding is that the lines of succession were united. Do you have the text of the Treaty of Troyes to hand?

Here is the paper on Henry VIII's "Kingdom of France": http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2640143?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103237557761

 

[Velasco]

Which raises the intersting possibility that, if the plague that struck Paris in the early 1710s had be4en worse and the Bourbons died out, James Stuart and his successors could have been placed on the throne of France in return to accepting their lack of rights to the English throne; a very weird War of French Succession with England supporting them.

Or, if the Bourbons die out in the 1650s and 1660s as could have happened with the right circumstances, there weren't many left then. If that happens, Louis XIII's younger sister was Charles II'd mother. Yeah, the Savoyards would have the better claim being from an older sister, but but as I noted in my TL where a number of houses die out, the winner would just be the one with the biggest army.

Now that's a timeline I'd like to read. Bonnie Dauphin Charlie ftw!

 

[Velasco]

It has always been my understanding that no matter what the English government claimed at those times and during the Wars of the Roses and during the Tudor Era, Henry VIII's legitimate right to the throne on his ascension depended on his being heir by male-preference primogeniture. After all, Salic Law had been mooted by the male line going extinct, semi-Salic Law would have pointed to Margaret Plantagenet as heiress, Edward III's interpretation of Salic Law would have pointed to her sons, and only Henry VII's curious semi-Salic claim would have given him the right to the throne, which depended on the curious assumptions that (1) the Beauforts were legitimate and inherited the right to the throne on the death of Henry VI, and (2) that after the death of the last Beaufort, the throne passed to Henry Tudor rather than simply go to the next heir under Salic Law, which would have been Edward IV (the point of semi-Salic Law is that you revert to the female heir only when all branches are extinct, and I can't see why the House of York suddenly wasn't a valid royal branch anymore by succession laws).

As I've said above, beyond the issue of Salic or semi-Salic inheritance there was the issue of representation - whether or not a grandchild moved up and took their parent's place in the succession - and also precedent, which is very important in English law. John Lackland's succession, for example, might be considered a relevant precedent, because succeeded ahead of the primogeniture heir Arthur of Brittany. Representation was an issue in Scotland, Flanders and very other countries around the same period and it took a couple centuries for people to arrive at a conclusive solutions for such problems.

Edward the Black Prince and Lionel of Clarence both died during their father's lifetime. It was understood that a male grandchild would inherit his father's place in the succession, but not a female. As such, Richard moved up one slot and became the royal heir, while Philippa of Clarence was ignored, little thought to her marriage, her issue ranked second to the princes of the blood, etc. As Henry IV (a male grandchild) did in time ascend to the throne, the right to succeed of his branch wasn't "cut off", so to speak, in the way Philippa's was: if he had died childless, his Beaufort brothers (if considered legitimate) or Portuguese nephew (if the Beaufort are considered illegitimate) were the heirs. As such, when the line died out, Henry Tudor emerged as the native-born male heir of Lancaster (there was some prejudice against foreign-born heirs), with additional flimsy claims by right of proximity of blood and conquest.