Dear History Doctor:
Why don't you ever write anything about the Queens of France? All I ever hear about are the Kings...Signed, How Come?
Dear How Come,
Well,
there is actually a very good reason why you never hear anything about
the “Queens of France.” There weren't any. At least, there weren't any
in a technical sense. When you see “Queen of France,” most people would
figure you mean someone female who ruled in France. And the sad fact
is, France had no queens regnant. And why not, I hear you ask? Ahh,
this requires just a bit of an explanation.
When
Europe was in the process of becoming Europe after the fall of the
Roman Empire in the West, those areas that were developing into
countries did not yet have a fixed way to decide who was up to bat
next. In fact, in some cases they simply selected whichever warrior
leader had the greatest, and therefore most dangerous, number of
followers. Occasionally there was some consideration of the inheritance
factor, but not usually.
The
good news about this type of arrangement was that it was stunningly
democratic, at least in the sense that not even illegitimacy would
serve as a bar to becoming ruler. William the Conqueror was born on the
wrong side of the sheets, for instance. The bad news was that it
produced untold chaos and conflict, especially since the early Middle
Ages was a sort of might-makes-right period anyway. Conflict did not
lead to stability, and as things began to settle down and more definite
national boundaries began to emerge, the need for a more organized
selection system became obvious.
But,
like peace in our time, it was easier to talk about than to accomplish.
There were regional differences to consider, plus the very strong role
of the nobles. So perhaps it was to be expected that not all countries
would emerge with the same rules. Most of them, however, developed some
sort of variation on the idea of inheritance, since that seemed the
surest way to have, in advance, at least a bit of a clue about who
would become the next ruler. Pretty quickly, thanks partly to
ecclesiastical influences, illegitimate children became, for the most
part, ineligible for the succession. This “rule” produced a certain
degree of strain in many a royal marriage, since it meant that the
wife, and only the wife, must produce an heir (or two, or three). Many
of the other “rules,” however, were produced on the spot, as necessity
demanded, because not all variations could be guessed at in advance.
Take
for instance the problem of daughters. What if the legitimate children
were all girls? It was on this score that England separated itself from
France, but not strictly for what today might be called chauvinistic
reasons.
You see, in 1314,
Philip IV of France died, leaving three male heirs and a daughter,
Isabella. His first two sons, Louis X and Philip V, finished their
reigns without producing a male heir. When Philip V died in 1322, the
two main contenders for the throne were Philip's younger brother
Charles and Edward of England. Edward was the grandson of Philip's
father, Philip IV. Stay with me here. Isabella had married Edward II of
England and of course the English believed that young Edward's claim to
the throne of France as a grandson of Philip IV should supercede that
of Charles, who was only a third son of Philip IV.
The
French barons did not see it that way. Since they had no wish to see
France and England combined into one realm, they quickly came up with
what later was called the Salic Law, stating that a woman could neither
rule in France nor pass her right to rule on to her heirs. Edward, who
felt he had been robbed, later invaded France to regain “his” country,
and this squabble turned into a little encounter called the Hundred
Years War.
In any
case, England went on to have several famous queens who actually ruled
(Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria) but France did not. When you see
“Queen of France,” it means that person was married to the King of
France and not that she actually ruled in her own right. In defiance of
logic, it became customary in France for the Queen Mother to be
appointed regent during the minority of her son, and in that capacity
she might as well have been queen regnant, at least until he attained
his majority. Go figure!
The History Doctor does not vouch for the accuracy of the questions asked. Or for the answers given either.
Copyright © Paris New Media, LLC
To learn more about this subject or plan a trip to France, order a book from Amazon.com.
