Burgundy - Apanage or not?

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Burgundy - Apanage or not?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 23 jul 2006 02:39:01

When Charles the Rash was killed in battle in 1477, he was the last legitimate male of his line. His heir was his only daughter Marie 'the Rich'.

Louis XI immediatly invaded and took over Burgundy as, so he said, Burgundy was an apanage and had to return to the crown.

Marie disagreed, as according to her - lands granted by the French kings to heir sons or brothers had all been at one time a part of the royal domain. That was not the case with Burgundy, as Jean II the Good came into possession of Burgundy in 1361 not through reversion to the crown but because he was the closest heir.

However, King Jean had actually united the duchy to the royal domain in 1361 after inheriting it from the last duke. And yet, despite this unification, when he gave it in September 1363 to his son Philippe 'the Bold' and the "heirs begotten from his body in legitimate matrimony", he did not specify "male heirs" as he had done in 1360 when granting Berry and Auvergne to his son Jean. This indicates that he may have had reservations about the legality of the duchy of Burgundy being considered a normal apanage, which women could no longer inherit. Significantly, he himself had qualified as the closest heir through a woman, his mother Jeanne de Bourgogne.

If according to the grant of 1361 Marie 'the Rich' should have kept Burgundy, then Emperor Charles V was totally correct fighting the French over Burgundy.

What is the opinion about this?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Burgundy - Apanage or not?

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 23 jul 2006 17:15:31

"Leo van de Pas" a écrit :

When Charles the Rash was killed in battle in 1477, he was the last legitimate male of his line. His heir was his only daughter Marie 'the Rich'.

Louis XI immediatly invaded and took over Burgundy as, so he said, Burgundy was an apanage and had to return to the crown.

Marie disagreed, as according to her - lands granted by the French kings to heir sons or brothers had all been at one time a part of the royal domain. That was not the case with Burgundy, as Jean II the > Good came into possession of Burgundy in 1361 not through reversion to the crown but because he was the closest heir.

However, King Jean had actually united the duchy to the royal domain in 1361 after inheriting it from the last duke. And yet, despite this unification, when he gave it in September 1363 to his son
Philippe 'the Bold' and the "heirs begotten from his body in legitimate matrimony", he did not specify "male heirs" as he had done in 1360 when granting Berry and Auvergne to his son Jean. This indicates
that he may have had reservations about the legality of the duchy of Burgundy being considered a normal apanage, which women could no longer inherit.. Significantly, he himself had qualified as the
closest heir through a woman, his mother Jeanne de Bourgogne.

If according to the grant of 1361 Marie 'the Rich' should have kept Burgundy, then Emperor Charles V was totally correct fighting the French over Burgundy.

What is the opinion about this?

The legists of the King of France considered that: 1) all apanages were
transmissible only to "male heirs" by definition (which was not
historically true: the first apanages were transmissible to any
descendants, if not to collaterals), and 2) Marie's father, Charles,
had forfeited his rights to anything he hold moving from the French
crown (in apanage or otherwise) due to his treason. Marie, of course,
had a different point of view.
Admitting Marie can have inherited Burgundy as she claimed, the last de
jure Habsburg duke of Burgundy would have been Charles II of Spain: at
his death in 1700 the heir according to the original grant would have
been Louis XIV's son, the dauphin Louis, then after his death in 1711
his own firstborn son, who incidentally used the title of Duke of
Burgundy, then his son who became King as Louis XV in 1715: at that
time, there can no more have been a de jour Duke of Burgundy, if there
was ever any.

Pierre

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»