The Roll Maker's Decision Making Essay

In the year of 1317, Charles IV, son of Phillip IV died leaving an unborn male heir John I. In a tumultuous turn of events, the infant John I died within mere days of his birth, resulting in a crisis of succession as Charles IV’s daughter Joan remained his sole living child. Following John I’s death his uncle Phillip V held an assembly with the barons of France, through which it was decided that no woman should succeed to the throne of France. It is curious that the Roll maker has included this piece of commentary, as it bears no influence on the lineage of the English kings themselves. However, written between 1429-1433, the timing of the Canterbury Roll’s creation suggests a propagandistic motive to this extract. It is apparent that this
commentary offers to the Roll’s audience a justification for the need for war between the French and English, highlighting one of the key grievances between English and French: the French succession of 1328 and the apparent usurpation of Isabella of France’s right to the throne.
Phillip IV, whom reigned between 1285-1314, left in his wake four heirs to the throne of France. These heirs included three sons and one daughter: Louis X, Phillip V, Charles IV, and Isabella. In an unfortunate turn of events for the Capetian dynasty, not a single one of Phillip IV’s sons sired a male heir who would live long enough to reign as King of France, thus ending centuries of direct male succession. When Louis X died in 1316 and his infant son John I died soon after, Phillip V utilised the opportunity to succeed to the French throne by outlawing the ascension of his rival claimant: Joan, daughter of Louis X. To do this, Phillip V succeeded in bringing together lords and nobles from across France in an assembly of barons to rule in favour of an agreement that rules out a female succession to the throne of France. When Phillip V himself died in 1322 without male siring a male heir, the French throne succeeded to his younger brother Charles IV, who himself died in 1328 before siring a male heir to the throne of France. Coupled with Phillip V’s provision that no female should succeed to the throne of France, the death of all three of Phillip IV’s sons among whom left no male heirs, would result in the collapse of the Capetian dynasty following the death of Charles IV in 1328.
The succession of 1328 saw a number of potential female heiresses overlooked as claimants to the French throne, the most relevant of which as it concerns English interests is the prevention of Isabella of France’s claim. Following the death of her brother Charles IV, Isabella sought to claim the French throne in the name of her son Edward III of England. This claim was rejected, as the French assembly of barons had once more declared in 1322 that no female should succeed to the throne of France, upholding that declaration by stating that Isabella possessed no claim to abdicate the French throne to her son Edward III. This ruling appears to be a point of antagonism between French and English during the Hundred Years’ War, as during Anglo-French negotiations in 1389 the English claim is evident in the French arguments recorded. Certainly the French saw the English claims as further motivation to justify the development of arguments in favour of Salic law throughout the Hundred Years’ War.
The prevention of female succession to the throne of Franco-related kingdoms has a history dating back to the early establishment of the Frankish Merovingian dynasty during the late fifth century. The Roll maker himself comments on this tradition in a sceptical tone, stating that it is something that the “French themselves allege. ” On this alleged tradition, in 1413 Jean de Montreuil developed a polemical treatise arguing in favour of the Valois monarchy’s legitimacy as claimants over the English. In this treatise, Jean de Montreuil cited a chapter from Merovingian Salic law code “De allodio,” which determines that men exclusively should receive the heritage of their ancestors. However, Jean de Montreuil inaccurately transcribed the clause in such a way that enabled the language to be applied to the French monarchy. With this in mind, it must be concluded that Montreuil’s argument is illegitimate. In spite of this error, the Salic tradition of the Merovingians was continuously utilised during arguments in favour of the Valois’ claim following Jean de Montreuil’s treatise.
The Lancaster’ Roll maker’s decision to include the French ruling that came to be known as Salic Law suggests the Lancasters viewed this claim with a high degree of legitimacy.
In the Roll maker’s commentary, an outline is given of the series of deaths that from a Lancaster perspective should have led to Isabella’s succession to the French throne. Following this, the Roll maker states Phillip IV responsible for ruling that no woman should succeed to the throne of France. By ordering the information in this way, the Roll maker contrasts Isabella should have succeeded, versus the reason why she was unable to, making it appear as though she had been usurped of this right. There is no mention of the granddaughters of Phillip IV who would also possess a claim should Salic law have not been implemented, suggesting the Lancasters either ignored their claims or viewed Isabella’s claim as being of greater legitimacy. Further emphasis on the claim is apparent in the multi colouring between blue and red in the genealogical tree following the appearance of Edward II on the Roll. This provides further evidence that the Lancasters believed that they did indeed possess claim to the French crown through the marriage of Isabella of France to Edward II of England, and her subsequent attempt to abdicate the throne to her son Edward
III.