Proximity of Blood
Transcript:
Proximity of Blood:
It sounds like a spell, or a silly joke about incest, but proximity of blood was an actual process used by some rulers to pass titles or even to pass thrones. This has actually come up a few times in this show already. Once in England actually and twice in France. Before I get into the examples what was it? Simply put those who are in the nearest generation to the recent king have precedents over those in later generations even if the later generations are descended from an older child. So, if this were in practice in England after the death of Edward III John of Gaunt would have taken precedents over his nephew Richard. But England had practiced primogeniture, at least in the nobility, since William the Bastard. The nobility also supported Richard becoming king, over any of his uncles, so primogeniture became set with Richard II accession. Now onto the actual examples!
You’ll remember me discussing King John usurping his nephew, Arthur of Brittany’s right to the throne of England. John’s legal argument was proximity of blood. Until the last year of his life Richard I had supported his nephew Arthur as his heir. Only towards the end of his reign did Richard I even suggest John. John was supported by their mother, though, which helped his case.
The other two cases directly impacted the Hundred Years’ War, the first even gave Edward III a little bit of an excuse. Robert of Artois, one of the claimants to the County of Artois, sought the protection of Edward III after his failed attempt to claim the County. Robert III as he’s known was the son of Philip of Artois, the son of Robert II who was the count from 1250-1302. Robert II was the father of three children, two whom survived childhood, Mahaut and Philip. Had Philip lived it would have been simple, oldest son takes all, but Philip died in 1298. leaving Robert III and five daughters behind. Robert’s grandfather decided to follow the traditions of the county and named his surviving daughter, Mahaut, his heiress. This is because Artois had practiced proximity of blood previously. This did work out in the long run, for Mahaut, well, other than her daughters being Joan and Blanche of Burgundy, you know, the daughters-in-law of Philip the Fair of France. But other than that things went well for her. For Robert III it lead to him trying to pass off a forged will and having to run off to England for protection.
The final example comes up in the special episode about Charles of Navarre. Oddly, this one relates to the other son of Philip the Fair (yup, it’s all just a big family feud) and Mahaut from above. Odo IV, Duke of Burgundy had changed from supporting his niece Joan II of Navarre once he was bribed with a wife by the future Philip V of France. Philip V’s daughter, Joan Countess of Burgundy (yes, Mahaut was her grandmother), and Odo had one surviving son, Philip, who had one surviving son, Philip, before he predeceased his mother. The younger Philip became the Duke of Burgundy upon the death of his grandfather Odo. He died young, before he had any children. This left the Duchy of Burgundy up for grabs. Odo had three older sisters, in order: Blanche, Margaret, and Joan, only Margaret and Joan had surviving descendants. The heirs to the Duchy, according to primogeniture were Charles II of Navarre as the grandson of Margaret or John II of France as the son of Joan. Now, according to primogeniture this is easy, Charles II, but John II was the feudal overlord of Burgundy and decided to use proximity of blood. Since he was more closely related to the line of the dukedom he decided he would take Burgundy. Now, in my research of Charles II I did find mentions that one of the earlier dukes of Burgundy, Odo’s father Robert II, willed that the duchy was to go to the descendants of his daughter Joan. Either way it didn’t matter, because proximity of the blood was often used when descent was from women. When the descendants of sons were around they had priority, but if only female-line descendants were available then using proximity of the blood was referenced. I think that John II was probably just using it as an excuse and had Charles been king of France John II would have had no claim.
There is an example of this failing, but then the failed party winning in the long run. Robert the Bruce claimed the throne of Scotland through his mother, Isobel of Huntington, the great granddaughter of David I of Scotland. The crown was also claimed by John Ballio through his mother Dervorguillia of Scotland a great-great granddaughter of David I of Scotland. Edward I of England was invited to adjudicate this disagreement and sided with Ballio, who ended up being a rather mediocre king for his short time on the throne. He was a bit of Edward I’d puppet. You may all be aware the Robert the Bruce eventually became king of Scotland.
So, proximity of the blood can be a good excuse in some cases, or not work out in others. It’s not something used today, at least in constitutional monarchies. The Saudi Royal Family obviously has their own way of doing things.
Ormrod, W. Mark (2011). Edward III.
https://archive.org/details/frenchapanagesca0000wood/page/n15/mode/2up
