Originally Posted by DavetheScot:
“I apologise; you appear to be more expert on this than me. I know Salic law was part of the issue, but I didn't realise it was only raised later.
With regard to the English king's rights to certain French dukedoms, I can understand where the French stood on that. Henry II had acquired, by inheritance or marriage, territories that encompassed the majority of France, and he tended to feel that, although he technically held these lands as a vassal of the French king, his status as monarch of his own seperate kingdom should exmpt him from the normal obligations. No monarch could be expected to tolerate such a situation.”
The idea of using something other than cognatic primogeniture, whereby the eldest child inherited no matter what sex, only really came into the picture during the claims of Edward III. They changed the way the crown was inherited because they didn't want to be ruled by a line of Kings descended from the Dukes of Aquitaine, who'd be a little bit lax in demonstrating their respect and fealty to the French crown over the years. But they still didn't refer or switch to full blown Salic Law until much later.
There's an interesting explanation here:
Quote:
“In 1316, King John I the Posthumous died, and for the first time in the history of the House of Capet, a king's closest living relative upon his death was not his son. French lords (notably led by the late king's uncle, Philip of Poitiers, the beneficiary of their position) wanted to forbid inheritance by a woman. These lords wanted to favour Philip's claim over John's half-sister Joan (later Joan II of Navarre), but disqualify her future claim to the French throne, and any possible future claims of Edward III of England. These events later led to the Hundred Years' War (1337–1453).
In 1328, a further limitation was needed, to bar inheritance by a male through a female line. A number of excuses were given for these applications of succession, such as "genealogical proximity with the king Saint Louis"; the role of monarch as war leader; and barring the realm going to an alien man and his clan through a woman, which also denied an order of succession where an alien man could become king of France by marriage to its queen, without necessarily having any French blood himself. Also, in 1316 the rival heir was a five-year-old female and powerless compared with the rival. In 1328, the rival was the king of England, against which France had been in a state of intermittent war for over 200 years. As far as can be ascertained, Salic law was not explicitly mentioned.
Jurists later (this is the time period which I believe Pasta is referring to) resurrected the long-defunct Salic law and reinterpreted it to justify the line of succession arrived at in the cases of 1316 and 1328 by forbidding not only inheritance by a woman but also inheritance through a female line
This law was by no means intended to cover all matters of inheritance — for example, not the inheritance of movables – only those land considered "Salic" — and there is still debate as to the legal definition of this word, although it is generally accepted to refer to lands in the royal fisc.
Only several hundred years later, under the Direct Capetian kings of France and their English contemporaries who held lands in France, did Salic law become a rationale for enforcing or debating succession. By then somewhat anachronistic (there were no Salic lands, since the Salian monarchy and its lands had originally emerged in what is now the Netherlands), the idea was resurrected by Philip V in 1316 to support his claim to the throne by removing his niece Jeanne from the succession, following the death of his nephew John.
In 1328, at latest, the Salic Law needed a further interpretation to forbid not only inheritance by a woman, but inheritance through a female line, in order to bar the male Edward III of England, descendant of French kings through his mother Isabel of France, from the succession. When the Direct Capetian line ended, the law was contested by England, providing a putative motive for the Hundred Years' War.
Shakespeare claims that Charles VI rejected Henry V's claim to the French throne on the basis of Salic law's inheritance rules, leading to the Battle of Agincourt. In fact, the conflict between Salic law and English law was a justification for many overlapping claims between the French and English monarchs over the French Throne.”
So by the time Henry V is making his claims to the Throne of France via his descent from Edward III, they've altered the rules. I do think he was more than a little bit daft to think he was going to get anything like the territory that the English owned under Henry II and there's a lot of conjecture now as to whether it was the influence of the Church that decided him on the path to war.
It is quite interesting though, I think, that the reigning monarch is referred to as the Duke of Normandy in the Channel Islands (irrespective of their sex) and toasted as such.
As for the adaptation itself, I'm only 45 minutes into it but I have to say I disagree with those who think Henry's "Once More Into the Breech Dear Friends" speech wasn't done well. I thought it was a very clever method of using the king speaking individually to each man, instead of to hundreds of troops. It spoke to each man and gave him courage direct and was very nicely understated. I haven't seen the St Crispin's Day speech yet to contrast it with though but so far I'm thoroughly enjoying this version.
than the fact it's BC. I think he'll bring a sense of studious seriousness to the role though which could be an interesting interpretation.