Post by futurist on Jul 2, 2016 7:25:55 GMT
What if Charles III, Duke of Bourbon wouldn't have gotten killed in Rome in 1527 and would have instead lived the remainder of his life in exile (estranged from the French royal court), had a surviving son, and died around 1550? Also, to elaborate on this, in this scenario, this son of Charles's will still be alive when (assuming no butterfly effect in regards to this) the House of Valois will become completely extinct in the male line in 1589.
Thus, my question here is this--in this scenario, would this son of Charles's have the stronger claim (in the eyes of the French nobility, et cetera) to the French throne due to agnatic primogeniture and (presumably) his Catholicism or would Henry III, King of Navarre have the stronger claim to the French throne due to the fact that, unlike this son of Charles's, Henry was actually born a prince du sang (prince of the blood)?
Indeed, any thoughts on this?
Thus, my question here is this--in this scenario, would this son of Charles's have the stronger claim (in the eyes of the French nobility, et cetera) to the French throne due to agnatic primogeniture and (presumably) his Catholicism or would Henry III, King of Navarre have the stronger claim to the French throne due to the fact that, unlike this son of Charles's, Henry was actually born a prince du sang (prince of the blood)?
Indeed, any thoughts on this?
