Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

en43rs t1_jdzu83u wrote

Reply to comment by NarutoUzuchiha in Weekly History Questions Thread. by AutoModerator

To add to this and go forward to Early Modern France, if the child was the son of a noblewoman they were usually treated well. Basically they were in a "in between" status: they had royal blood but absolutely no claim to the throne. So they were respected but always as high ranking nobles, not official member of the royal family.

The Duc d'Angoulême (bastard son of the French King Charles IX) was even more in a peculiar situation: his father was part of the Valois dynasty, but after 1589 (death of the last Valois king)... there were no longer any (legitimate) Valois. The crown went to their distant cousins the Bourbons (from which we get Henry IV, Louis XIV and so on). But he remained, like a remnant of that family. For example he was chosen as ambassador to the Holy Roman Empire in 1620, him being of the Valois blood made him suitable as a symbolic representative of the crown.

So yeah, legitimized bastard had a high status (none of this game of throne non sense)... but always on the side. A rank below the "proper" family.

2

NarutoUzuchiha t1_je0whd8 wrote

why couldn't Duc d'Angoulême gain supporters and usurp the throne from his Bourbon cousins?

1

en43rs t1_je117he wrote

I could point to the fact that France was in a civil war and that he was very close to the future Henry IV who was a very powerful war leader, or the fact that he was 16 when his uncle died...

But there would still be a problem. That would be entertaining the idea that he could inherit the throne. Despite what is often said the Kings of France did not have unlimited power. There is a set of "fundamental laws" that even they had to respect. Those included the fact that only males could inherit and transfer right to the throne, that the king could not choose his successor (it was always his closest male relative, often his eldest child)... but also the fact that the King had to have a legitimate claim.

He is not a legitimate son (even if he is recognized and was given land) and so he cannot get the throne. Ever.

Despite what Game of Thrones and Hollywood may say (although the Last Duel shows this quite well) the Middle Ages/Modern Era was very legalist. Laws were essential. Charles d'Angoulême (later Duke of Angoulême) has no claim. He cannot be the King of France no more than he can be the Pope or the Emperor of China.

If we imagine an alternate universe were Angouleme was the most powerful and popular noble around (which... he was not), who somehow raised an army and took the throne.. he wouldn't be legitimate. He would have to act as a conqueror who took it by force and the whole of Europe would probably gang up on him to install whatever distant relative to the throne they had as a "legitimate" puppet king. Even William the Conqueror who took over England had to pretend that he had a claim (the previous king "apparently" promised it to him).

​

Of course in real life if that had happened, he would have found a justification. But the truth is that as a bastard he was forever a B tier noble without a claim.

2

NarutoUzuchiha t1_je55p5g wrote

woah...that's news to me...
I thought a bastard could inherit if the king had no issues or siblings or close relatives (uncles, 1st/2nd cousins) but seems like they will be totally ignored in any case and a very distant relative would be preferred over them any day..
By the way, i have read somewhere that Henry VIII didn't have any legitimate son until...well...Edward VI popped out and before that he was planning to designate Henry FitzRoy (his bastard through Elizabeth Blount) as his heir.
Is this somewhat true?

1

en43rs t1_je59yo0 wrote

>I thought a bastard could inherit if the king had no issues or siblings or close relatives (uncles, 1st/2nd cousins)

Not in France. Now, if they couldn't find any heir (which would be impossible by the late middle ages, everyone noble in Europe was related to everyone) mayyyybe but as I said when you get past the 11th century everyone is more or less related to everyone and can reliably prove it.

>i have read somewhere that Henry VIII didn't have any legitimate son until...well...Edward VI popped out and before that he was planning to designate Henry FitzRoy (his bastard through Elizabeth Blount) as his heir.

Is this somewhat true?

As my example may suggest I studied French history (specifically the 17th century), I know nothing about English royal history, sorry.

2

NarutoUzuchiha t1_je8rpg0 wrote

it's fine sir...thanks a lot, i came to learn loads of new info thnx to u

1