Welcome to the Deep Dive, the place where we
take stacks of sources, research notes and historical
narratives and try to distill all that chaos
into the insight you need to be truly well informed.
And today we are heading on what is probably
one of the most tragic and just plain bizarre
journeys in European history. We're tracking
the life of Charles VI of France. This is a story.
That honestly, it reads like a classical tragedy.
You have a king who governed for 42 years, but
his life is this perfect, horrifying illustration
of how a single devastating mental illness can
completely shatter a nation. Right. And lead
it to the very brink of foreign conquest and,
well, civil annihilation. And the sources. The
sources saddle him with these two nicknames that
are so contradictory, they're almost unbelievable.
The first one is the beloved. Le Bien -Aimé.
Yeah, which he earned during this brief successful
window when things were going really well. And
the second one. The Mad. Le Fou. Or Le Fou. And
that's the name that ultimately defined not just
him, but his entire era. So our mission for this
deep dive is to really unpack that. To trace
his life from this promising start through the...
really disturbing manifestations of his psychosis.
Which were often spectacular and very, very public.
Exactly. And then understand precisely how this
personal disaster created a power vacuum that
just fractured the French state. A vacuum that
ultimately allowed Henry V of England to seize
the advantage and for a time completely dominate
France during the late Hundred Years' War. Okay,
so the starting line here is absolutely essential.
Charles VI was born in 1368, and when he was
crowned, he was only 11 years old. This was in
1380. And at that point, he was in an enviably
strong position. His father, Charles V, was an
incredibly astute ruler. They called him the
wise for a reason. Right. He rebuilt the royal
finances. He professionalized. the army, he was
actively driving the English back. So Charles
VI inherits this really favorable military and
political situation. But as we're about to see,
that strength was, well, it was squandered almost
immediately. The irony is just crushing, isn't
it? He reigned all the way until 1422, which
is a long time. A very long tenure. But his true
control, the period where he was actually a successful
functional monarch, was incredibly short -lived.
First, it was dominated by these self -interested
regents. Yeah. His uncles. And then, tragically,
it was completely eclipsed by the onset of these
severe psychotic episodes that began when he
was only 24. It's a 42 -year chronicle of catastrophic
decline. So let's start where all the trouble
really began. The minority. Charles VI is crowned
in November 1380. Now, the official age of majority
was 14. But the powerful men around him, his
uncles, they successfully argued to extend the
regency until he was 20. So who were these men
and what were their real interests? Because it
certainly wasn't the stability of France. No,
not really. These were the powerful dukes, all
brothers of the late Charles V, plus one maternal
uncle. In order of, let's say, influence, you
had Philip II, the Duke of Burgundy. He immediately
took the dominant role. Then there was Louis
XVI, Duke of Anjou, John, Duke of Bury, and finally
Louis II, Duke of Bourbon, the maternal uncle.
It sounds... Sounds like a recipe for political
fragmentation right from the start. It was, and
that's exactly what happened. Take Louis Vanjou,
for example. He had these grand, incredibly distracting
ambitions elsewhere. You wanted a kingdom in
Italy, right? Precisely. He spent years, starting
in 1382, fighting for the kingdom of Naples to
assert his claim there. He was completely focused
on an Italian kingdom, not the French treasury,
right up until he died in 1384. And John of Barry.
Was he any better? He was similarly distracted,
though a bit closer to home. His focus was almost
entirely on maximizing his own extensive interests
and wealth in Languedoc in the south of France.
He was a famous patron of the arts, though. An
incredible patron of the arts, yes, but a terrible
public servant, he was far more concerned with
building his magnificent chateau and acquiring
these beautiful illuminated manuscripts than
he was with actually governing France. So that
leaves the maternal uncle, Louis II, Duke of
Bourbon. The sources describe him as the least
consequential, eccentric, largely unimportant
politically. It is worth noting, though, that
he himself was known to display signs of mental
instability. An unsettling bit of foreshadowing,
isn't it? It really is an unsettling precursor,
perhaps, to the illness that would soon grip
the family's young king. So you have four men
who are supposed to be governing the kingdom,
but only one, Philip the Bold of Burgundy, is
really active in the core decision -making. And
his focus was entirely self -serving. This led
directly to the central problem of the early
regency. The systematic and incredibly rapid
financial mismanagement of the entire kingdom.
Right. Because their father, Charles V, had been
so careful he'd painstakingly built up the royal
treasury, accumulated wealth, secured loans.
He ensured fiscal stability. But the Dukes, they
saw this accumulated wealth not as state resources,
but as like a giant inheritance, a personal cash
machine for their own ambitions. The sources
on this are pretty damning, aren't they? Oh,
absolutely. They centralized power specifically
to achieve their financial aims. They got rid
of Charles V's competent administrators. And
critically, they reversed Charles V's popular
deathbed decision to repeal several highly unpopular
taxes, known as the aides. So they weren't just
squandering money. They were actively alienating
the population for personal gain. Exactly. They
needed cash for Burgundy's expansion, for Anjou's
Neapolitan adventure, for Barry's luxury spending.
And they were going to get it, no matter the
cost to the kingdom's stability. Reversing a
popular tax repeal has to be one of the quickest
ways to trigger urban unrest. And that's exactly
what happened almost immediately. It resulted
in significant tax revolts all across the kingdom,
collectively known as the Harrel. The Harrel,
what does that name mean? It comes from the rallying
cry, the hurrah, which was a cry of alarm. It
began in ruin and just spread like wildfire throughout
northern France. So this is a massive urban uprising.
It was. It was a huge popular movement against
the arbitrary reimposition of these taxes. And
it just goes to show how quickly the legitimacy
and the goodwill that Charles V had earned were
completely destroyed by the Duke's sheer greed.
The crown was immediately unstable the moment
its strong hand was removed. And their political
decisions in foreign affairs were just as self
-interested. You mentioned the Battle of Rosbeck
in 1382. That battle is the perfect example of
the dukes manipulating the French state for private
gain. Rosbeck was fought against the Flemings,
led by Philip van Artvel. And this was a revolt
that threatened Philip the Bold of Burgundy's
interest in Flanders. Significantly. His territorial
and economic interests. So the French army, the
king's forces, were essentially deployed for
one reason, to protect the private domain of
Duke of Burgundy. Further draining resources
and diverting attention from the actual war against
England. Precisely. During this period, France
was less a kingdom and more a collection of private
vehicle properties. So by 1388, Charles VI is
20. He must have been acutely aware that his
uncles were bankrupting the country in his name.
Absolutely. And the sources described this moment
in 1388 as Charles finally showing this powerful,
decisive moment of political maturity. He saw
the damage. And he acted. He did. Publicly and
dramatically, he dismissed his corrupt uncles.
He effectively stripped them of their governmental
authority and took the reins of power himself.
It was a bit late, but he did it with great conviction.
And what he did next was brilliantly strategic.
he restored the highly competent advisers of
his father The men often dismissively called
the marmosets. The marmosets, yes. The word means
something like little men or little boys. It
was a derogatory term the powerful dukes used
to describe these, you know, lower nobility but
highly educated and loyal administrators. Men
like Bureau de la Riviere and Olivier de Clisson.
Exactly. But these little men were incredibly
effective. They immediately began restoring financial
order, simplifying the tax code, and enforcing
strict accountability on all royal spending.
And this marks a really critical four -year period.
The sources describe it as ushering in a new
period of high esteem for the crown. And it was
during this brief time that the young, competent
king earned that first positive and, in hindsight,
tragically ironic nickname from his subjects,
Charles the Beloved. For a moment, it really
must have appeared that the House of Valois was
not only stable, but was actually poised for
a new era of success. That's why this period
is so important to understand. It shows that
Charles VI had the capacity to be a strong, effective
ruler. He wasn't destined for madness from birth.
His successful four years prove he possessed
the political intelligence to govern. Which just
makes the eventual collapse due to his illness
all the more devastating for the kingdom. It
is genuinely tragic, knowing that this brief
shining moment was just a prelude to utter psychological
and political darkness. That era of competency
was so fragile. it collapsed in the most spectacular
fashion in 1392. So the period of stable, successful
rule ends abruptly in August 1392. This is the
year that marks the clear onset of his debilitating
psychosis. And it was triggered by a military
campaign. He was heading to the Duchy of Brittany.
Why Brittany? The king was absolutely incensed
because his dear friend and one of his key marmoset
advisors, Olivier de Clisson. The constable of
France. Right. Clisson had survived an assassination
attempt orchestrated by by a man named Pierre
de Creon. Creon then took refuge with John V,
the Duke of Brittany, who refused to hand him
over. So Charles took it personally. Very personally.
He insisted on punishing the Duke himself, and
some sources suggest this was an early sign of
a kind of manic fixation. He seemed to be in
a frantic fever to start the campaign, ignoring
his physician's advice to rest. The sources paint
a really disturbing picture of his psychological
state, even before they set off. They do. Contemporaries
noted that Charles was already showing signs
of distraction, his speech was disjointed. The
army set off on July 1st, 1392, but the slow
pace and the intense... Tense summer heat just
seemed to feed his internal agitation. Okay,
so let's unpack this incredibly dramatic scene
that happened near Le Mans in August 1392. This
is the moment history recorded his first true
public breakdown. The buildup is just critical.
The royal procession is riding through this hot,
humid forest, and they're suddenly confronted
by this figure. He's described as a barefoot
leper dressed in rags who just rushes out of
the trees. And he grabs the king's bridle. the
nerve of that incredible and he starts screaming
at the king ride no further noble king turn back
you are betrayed wow the king's guards managed
to beat the man back but they didn't capture
him and he continued to shadow the procession
for nearly half an hour just repeating this frantic
warning over and over so that immediately establishes
this state of intense paranoia and tension among
the entire escort completely and then came the
physical trigger the thing that finally broke
charles's already stressed mind what was it as
the company emerged from the dense woods into
the full heat of the midday sun a page maybe
he was tired maybe careless he dropped the king's
lance and it made a loud noise a very loud noise
the weapon clanged against a steel helmet being
carried by another page nearby and that seemingly
minor sound was the catalyst for the whole catastrophe
It was the breaking point. The sound, combined
with the heat, the stress, and that chilling
warning from the leper. Charles just shuddered
violently. He instantly drew his sword. And started
yelling. Screaming, forward against the traitors!
They wish to deliver me to the enemy! And he
attacked his own men. He attacked without discrimination.
He genuinely believed they were the traitors
the leper had warned him about. The sources confirm
he killed several men, including a knight known
as the Bastard of Poloniak. My God, how did they
stop him? It took the combined strength of his
chamberlains and soldiers to finally drag him
from his horse and subdue him. He then just collapsed.
He fell into a profound coma. What a terrifying
and incredibly public display of instability.
The political consequences must have been devastating.
Immediate and total, he was carried unconscious
to the nearby castle of Creole. The political
reality was crystal clear. The successful rule
of the marmosets was over. The sources say he
was instantly placed back under the regency of
the powerful dukes of Bury and Burgundy. So the
clock was turned back to 1388, but this time
the crown itself was broken. Exactly. And the
incident near Le Mans was just the beginning.
From 1392 until his death 30 years later, Charles
VI cycled constantly between these brief, precious
periods of lucidity and intense mental instability.
Stable governance became impossible. So what
were some of the other bizarre manifestations
of his psychosis? The sheer variety of his delusions
is what makes this case so medically compelling.
Just a few months after Le Mans, in 1393, he
experienced this profound amnesia. He didn't
know who he was. Didn't have a clue. When his
wife, Queen Isabeau, came to his bedside, he
genuinely did not recognize her. He asked his
servants who this woman was and ordered them
to remove her so he could be left alone. He couldn't
remember his own name or the fact that he was
the king of France. Can you imagine the horror
of the court? Realizing their sovereign doesn't
even know he's the sovereign. It's terrifying.
And subsequent delusions took on these almost
mythical qualities. It showed he still retained
some fragments of his royal and religious education.
Well, around 1395 to 96, he developed these highly
specific delusions. For a time, he claimed he
was St. George, the patron saint of chivalry.
He started demanding that his coat of arms be
changed to a lion with a sword thrust through
it. And he would recognize some people, but not
others. That's one of the strangest parts. During
these episodes, he would often recognize the
minor officers of his household, the squires,
the valets, but remain utterly detached from
his own wife and his children. It suggests a
very selective or maybe even a defensive form
of memory and recognition. And then, of course,
there's the most famous delusion, the one that
truly captured the imagination for centuries,
the glass delusion. The documentation for this
is incredible. It comes not just from chroniclers,
but from Pope Pius II, who wrote about it in
his commentaries. Charles VI sometimes genuinely
believed his body was made of glass. That he
would shatter if he experienced any kind of impact.
Exactly. And that is such a powerful and specific
mental image. What did he do to, you know, protect
himself? He reportedly took these extraordinary
measures. He had iron rods sewn into his clothes,
essentially creating a kind of internal cage
around his body. into a person or a piece of
furniture? The metal structure would absorb the
shock and his glass body would remain intact.
This kind of persistent protective behavior really
demonstrates the absolute conviction he held
in this delusion. Beyond these dramatic delusions,
his illness eventually led to just sheer self
-neglect, which must have further isolated him
from his role as king. By 1405, the self -neglect
became impossible to hide. The sources state
he refused to bathe or change his clothes for
five months straight. Five months. Five months.
At his residence, the Hotel Saint -Paul, he would
sometimes experience these periods of manic running,
just wildly sprinting through the corridors.
It created such a state of chaos and danger that
eventually they had to physically wall up the
doorways. To keep him confined. His court effectively
became a padded cell for the king. It did. Now,
given the dramatic and varied nature... I can
imagine. What are the main theories? Well, the
lack of a unified diagnosis is a big part of
the story. When modern psychiatry emerged in
the 19th century, the default assumption for
any historical royal instability was, you know,
schizophrenia. The general term for severe psychosis.
Right. But more specific alternatives have been
proposed based on the source descriptions. Things
like manic depressive psychosis, what we now
call bipolar disorder, which would account for
the cycles between frenetic activity, like the
campaign to Brittany, and then deep comas or
amnesia. And there were more physical theories
too, right? Yes. Some have suggested severe arsenic
poisoning may be administered inadvertently or
maliciously. The sudden violent onset supports
that idea. Then there's typhus induced encephalopathy.
Typhus. Typhus is interesting because it could
explain both the fits of delirium and the chronicler's
mentions of rashes or skin issues. And finally,
porphyria, a metabolic disorder, is another classic,
though maybe overused, historical diagnosis for
royal madness. So a single definitive diagnosis.
will probably forever remain out of reach. I
think so. But the political impact was immediate
and measurable. The one constant through these
years was the desperate attempt by those close
to him to maintain some semblance of order. Which
brings us to Pierre Salmon, his secretary. Exactly.
Salmon spent a lot of time with the king during
his lucid periods. And his response wasn't medical.
It was... philosophical and political. He oversaw
the production of these two magnificent, richly
illuminated versions of his dialogues. They were
basically guidebooks for good kingship. That's
right. Manuals designed to remind Charles of
his duty, and perhaps through literature, to
help stabilize this deeply volatile kingdom.
It was a very courtly, intellectual attempt to
fight chaos. Speaking of chaos, let's transition
from the king's personal breakdown to the massive
public spectacle that solidified the public's
view of the court as unstable and reckless. The
Balle des Ardents. The Dance of the Burning Men.
This happened in January 1393, just months after
the incident near Le Mans. And it was organized
by Queen Isabeau of Bavaria. Yes, at the Hotel
Saint -Paul to celebrate a lady -in -waiting's
wedding. It was meant to be a moment of levity,
you know, to try and mask the underlying anxiety
about the king. But the choice of costume was
disastrously ill -advised. A reckless attempt
at entertainment. It was almost unbelievably
dangerous. The king and four other young lords
decided to dress as wild men. The sources are
very specific about this. Linen cloth was sewn
directly onto their bodies. And then this cloth
was soaked in pitch or resinous wax to make it
sticky. That allowed them to cover themselves
completely in frazzled hemp so they looked shaggy
and hairy. And crucially. Highly flammable. Incredibly
flammable. The king made a rule that no torches
were to be brought into the room, ostensibly
for safety, but... Everyone ignored it. Immediately
disregarded. The king's younger brother, Louis
I, Duke of Orléans, arrived late with his own
entourage. He was excited, maybe a bit drunk,
and he approached the masked dancers with a lighted
torch, trying to figure out who they were. And
he accidentally set one of the costumes on fire.
And the panic must have been horrifying. It was
instant and absolute. The flames spread from
man to man in seconds. But the king was saved
through a miraculous act of quick thinking. His
aunt, the Duchess of Berry, recognized him and
instantly threw the heavy train of her gown over
Charles, smothering the flames and shielding
him from the blaze. The others weren't so lucky.
Four of the dancers perished horribly. One man,
Jean, son of the Lord of Nantouyé, saved his
own life by jumping headfirst into a large open
tub of dishwater. The tragedy was complete and
very, very public. The public reaction must have
been one of profound shock and outrage. It was.
The court, led by... the queen and the now returned
dukes was seen not only as politically incompetent
but as morally decadent. This horrific fire just
solidified the notion that the king and his government
were cursed, incapable of providing safety or
stability. The era of the beloved was truly over.
Replaced by the grim reality of the mad. So now
we move from the king's personal tragedy to the
political catastrophe that followed. With Charles
VI cycling between states of being functional
and non -functional, the Regency Council, which
was dominated by Queen Isabeau, became the focus
of this desperate power struggle from 1393 onward.
The rivalry was so intense because the stakes
were, well, total control over the French treasury
and military. Initially, Filthibold of Burgundy
still had a lot of influence over the queen.
But that influence began to shift. It shifted
significantly towards the king's younger brother,
Louis XIV, Duke of Orléans. Varlion was charismatic,
ambitious, and he actively wanted the regency.
And crucially, the sources strongly suggest that
he was the queen's lover. Which added this layer
of scandalous personal animosity to the political
feud against Philip the Bold. And this internal
struggle immediately resulted in the dismissal
of those competent marmosets that Charles had
installed. Yes. Order was replaced by patronage
and pure self -interest. The underlying rivalry
was between this increasingly powerful, centralized,
and tax -heavy government faction led by Orléans.
And the powerful, decentralized, more populous
faction, often allied with the communes of Paris,
led by Burgundy. And that rivalry intensified
massively when Philip the Bold died in 1404.
His son, John the Fearless, inherited the title
and his father's political aims, but with a far
more ruthless edge. The feud with Louis of Orléans
became this open, defining conflict. But before
this conflict exploded into full -blown civil
war, the court, which really reflected the arbitrary
and unstable nature of the regency, issued a
devastating decree in 1394. The complete expulsion
of the Jews from France. This was a sudden and
shocking ordinance published on September 17,
1394. What was the pretext for such a sweeping,
irreversible action? The official rationale was
based on these longstanding complaints of alleged
excesses and misdemeanors committed by the Jewish
community against Christians. Prosecutors supposedly
found evidence that the community had broken
prior oaths and agreements made with the king.
But the chronicler, the monk of St. Denis, cast
some serious doubt on whether the king genuinely
assented to this. He does. He claims that Charles
VI, during a lucid moment, signed the decree
only at the absolute persistent insistence of
Queen Isabeau. Which puts the decision squarely
in the realm of court manipulation, not rational
governance. Exactly. And the decree, which was
framed as an irrevocable law and statute, stipulated
that no Jew could dwell in Charles VI's domains.
And the enforcement details in the sources...
They reveal the harsh financial motivation behind
the whole thing. Walk us through that enforcement
process. So the financial catastrophe for the
Jewish community was sealed by what the king
did next, right? With the debt cancellation.
Precisely. Once the Jews were forced to sell
what they could and were escorted to the frontier
by the provost, the king then officially released
all Christians from their remaining debts to
the now -expelled Jews. So it was a massive wealth
transfer disguised as a religious decree. That's
exactly what it was. It guaranteed that the departing
community would leave France financially crippled,
and it marked the definitive end of the Jewish
presence in France until the time of the revolution.
A politically expedient and financially cool
measure. And this political environment, just
rife with ambition, debt, and this factional
hatred, it all culminated in the assassination
of Louis of Orléans in 1407. This was the moment
the rivalry turned into open war. It happened
right in the heart of Paris, in the Rue Villiers
du Temple. Louis of Orléans was ambushed and
brutally murdered. And John the Fearless, Duke
of Burgundy, he didn't even try to hide his involvement.
Not at all. In fact, he publicly claimed responsibility
and then provided this cynical justification
for the act. what was the justification this
is critical he essentially had to frame regicide
the murder of the king's own brother as some
kind of moral necessity He commissioned theologians
and legal scholars, most famously a man named
Jean Petit, to issue these elaborate justifications
in the form of pamphlets. Petit argued that Orléans
wasn't just a political opponent, but a financial
tyrant who had systematically squandered royal
money and committed treason. So John the Fearless
wasn't a murderer. No, he was an agent of public
justice, a tyrannicide. He was removing a corrupt
threat to the public good and to the king himself.
That's the language of propaganda, isn't it?
Designed to appeal to the Parisian populace who
had suffered under Orléans' high taxes. Absolutely.
But despite the theological cover, the act was
still viewed as a blood crime by Orléans' heirs,
and the war began immediately. Yes, the assassination
was the fuse that lit the Armagnac -Burgundian
Civil War, which would tear France apart for
decades. Orléans' son Charles, who became the
next Duke of Orléans and a famous poet, was too
young to lead. So he immediately sought support
from his powerful father -in -law, Bernard VII,
Count of Armagnac. And just like that, France
was formally and brutally split in two. You had
the Armagnacs, representing the Orléans party,
and the Bourguignons, the Burgundy party. And
the Bourguignons consistently controlled the
capital, Paris. And most importantly, they controlled
the person. of the tragically afflicted King
Charles VI. And the king, during his moments
of lucidity, was forced to oscillate between
legitimizing one side or the other. He'd issued
decrees that were immediately reversed when the
opposing factions seized control of Paris. This
constant, bloody, localized fighting with massacres
and terror enacted on the Parisian population.
It left the French crown utterly incapable of
defending itself against foreign enemies. The
focus had turned completely, fatally inward.
And that internal fracturing was the open invitation
that Henry V of England had been waiting for.
By 1415, he's looking across the channel and
seeing a France that's leaderless, divided, and
bleeding itself dry. This was the moment to reignite
the Hundred Years' War in earnest. And he wasn't
just fighting for land anymore. He was fighting
for the entire French throne. The renewed English
invasion culminated in the catastrophic Battle
of Agincourt in October 1415. It was a military
disaster, of course, but fundamentally it was
a political failure. The divided French leadership,
composed of Armagnac and Burgundian -leaning
nobles who could barely stand to be in the same
camp, they made one critical strategic error
after another. They fueled this massive, heavily
armored force. But the sources all indicate this
profound lack of unified command and coordination.
Which Henry V, with his disciplined archers,
exploited ruthlessly. The result was devastating.
The loss of life among the French aristocracy
was just crippling. It gutted the military and
administrative leadership of the Valois dynasty.
The constable of France himself, Charles Delbray,
was killed, along with thousands of knights and
nobles. This single battle just hollowed out
the French state's ability to recruit, command,
and fund any future resistance. left a massive
power vacuum right at the top of society. And
with the military so weakened, the Civil War
only intensified. In 1418, the Gundians seized
Paris in a bloody coup. And the Dauphin Charles,
the king's heir, he was forced to flee south,
escaping barely with his life. This political
instability just kept producing these cycles
of violence. John the Fearless, now controlling
Carus and the king, he actually attempted to
solidify his power. By negotiating a truce with
the Delfin Charles. Yes, hoping to unite against
the common English enemy. The two leaders met
at the bridge at Monroe on September 10th, 1419.
It sounds like this was meant to be the ultimate
peace conference. It was supposed to be a reconciliation,
but the memory of Orléans' murder was too fresh.
The distrust was just too deep, and during the
meeting, John the Fearless was murdered. By one
of the Dauphin's followers, Tanigida Shestel.
It was assassination as revenge. So the Armagnacs
detaliated with an assassination of their own,
cementing this cycle of royal violence, and the
consequences for France were immediate, total,
and fatal. Absolutely fatal. John the Fearless's
successor, his son Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy,
was utterly enraged. And he reacted not with
another attempt at revenge, but with geopolitical
finality. He allied himself with Henry V. Completely
and irrevocably. The alliance between Burgundy,
which controlled Paris and the king's person,
and England, which controlled the military, created
an unstoppable political force. And this alliance
led directly to the ultimate act of state betrayal.
The Treaty of Troyes. signed on May 21st, 1420.
Charles VI, in one of his lucid but politically
helpless periods, essentially signed away the
French crown to the English. The terms were unambiguous
and just devastating for the Valois line. The
treaty formally named Henry V of England as Charles
VI's successor. It stipulated that Henry's heirs,
not the French Dauphin, would inherit the throne
of France, thus unifying the crowns of England
and France. And it officially disinherited the
Dauphin Charles, the true French heir, who was
only 17 at the time. It denied him his birthright.
And to cement the whole agreement, Charles VI's
daughter, Catherine of Valois, was betrothed
to Henry V. This political marriage ensured that
their child would possess a valid genealogical
claim to both thrones, based on a treaty signed
by the French king himself. So the disinherited
Dauphin, who had set up this, you know, pathetic
but persistent rival court in Bourges, was then
subjected to a vicious propaganda campaign by
the powerful Burgundian faction. Yes. By 1421,
the Burgundian propagandists went beyond just
citing the treaty. They began strongly implying
that the young Charles VII was illegitimate.
A direct political attack, likely fueled by those
old rumors of Queen Isabeau's affair with Louis
of Orleans. Exactly. If they could convince the
populace that the Dauphin was not the son of
Charles VI, then the disinheritance would be
legally and morally justified. The entire fate
of France hinged on the mental instability of
one man and the alleged infidelities of his wife.
The sources also mentioned the broader imperial
context, which shows just how fragmented French
authority had become. Indeed, the Holy Roman
Emperor Sigismund, he sensed this complete collapse
of French authority and tried to exploit the
chaos to reassert imperial control over French
border territories. In 1421, he appointed an
imperial vicar for the Kingdom of Burgundy, or
Arles. Yes, a man named Louis II of Chalon -Arlais.
And for those unfamiliar with the title, an imperial
vicar was basically a temporary representative
with military and judicial authority over the
region. So the Holy Roman Empire, which bordered
France to the east, was trying to install its
own man. They were trying to detach territories
like Dauphine and Provence, claiming they fell
under imperial jurisdiction. It was a clear sign
that foreign powers believed the French crown
was completely incapable of governing its own
eastern domains. The attempt ultimately failed,
but it highlights just how vulnerable France
was perceived to be. The final chapter of Charles
VI's life is marked by this strange irony of
timing. Henry V of England, the man legally designated
to inherit the French throne, died first. In
August 1422, it was a pivotal twist of fate.
Because just weeks later... Charles VI, the source
of so much national tragedy, he died on October
21st, 1422, in Paris at the Hotel Saint -Paul.
So because Henry V had died first, the succession,
at least in law, according to the Treaty of Troy,
passed to Henry V's infant son. The nine -month
-old Henry VI of England. The English and Burgundians
controlled Paris, and Henry VI was subsequently
proclaimed king of France. And he was later crowned
in Notre Dame in 1431. France technically had
an English king. But the fight was far from over.
The disinherited Dauphin, Charles, who refused
to accept the treaty, he continued the fight
from his rival court in Bourges. And he was widely
regarded by the vast majority of the French people
and loyalists as the true rightful heir. They
called him the King of Bourges. The national
war now shifted focus entirely. It wasn't a civil
war between Armagnacs and Bourguignons anymore.
It became a fight for national survival against
the English occupation. And it was ultimately
the arrival and leadership of Joan of Arc that
galvanized the French forces. She led the Dauphin's
army. to these crucial victories, demonstrating
what was seen as divine favor for the French
cause. And that allowed for Charles' symbolic,
powerful coronation as King Charles VII at Rheims
Cathedral in 1429, the traditional site for French
kings deep within English -held territory. And
Charles VII eventually succeeded where his father
had failed. He proved himself to be an excellent
and determined king. He ultimately defeated the
English entirely by 1450, finally ending the
Hundred Years' War and living up to the new title
history gave him, Charles the Victorious. Hashtag
tag outro. So as we wrap up this deep dive, it's
really worth summarizing the direct lineage of
Charles VI, because his tragedy created this
incredible web of geopolitical relationships
that affected not just France, but England as
well. His marriage to Isabeau of Bavaria in 1385,
it produced a large number of children. It's
a testament to the fact that even amidst psychosis
and civil war, dynastic duties continued. Several
children died young, including three dolphins
who never lived to inherit the crown. But the
surviving children's marriages were profoundly
strategic. The sources highlight several key
dynastic bonds. Their daughter, Isabella, first
married Richard II of England and then later
married Charles, Duke of Borléon. The son of
the man murdered by the Duke of Burgundy. The
very same. Another daughter, Michelle, married
Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, solidifying
that deadly alliance between the House of Valois
and Burgundy, the one which nearly destroyed
France. And, of course, Catherine of Valois.
She became the political centerpiece. of the
Treaty of Troyes, marrying Henry V of England.
Her marriage produced Henry VI, the infant king
of both nations, who had to be physically crowned
in both London and Paris. But Catherine's story
has a secondary, equally massive legacy for England.
It does. After Henry V's death, she allegedly
married a Welsh courtier named Owen Tudor. Through
this union, she became the grandmother of Henry
VII. The founder of the powerful Tudor dynasty
in England. Exactly. So the children of Charles
Amad influenced both the ending of the Valois
period in France and the beginning of the Tudor
period across the Channel. It is a history just
saturated in political manipulation and personal
frailty. Charles VI's reign stands as one of
the lowest, most vulnerable periods for the House
of Valois. It's a terrifying historical lesson.
The profound, debilitating mental illness of
one king metastasized into national failure,
permitting foreign invasion and internal civil
war to nearly obliterate the most powerful monarchy
in Western Europe. His madness created the power
vacuum. His madness allowed the dukes to steal
the treasury. His madness allowed Henry V to
claim a legitimate right to the French throne.
It forces us to acknowledge just how fragile
the entire system of medieval governance was,
resting on the stability of a single, highly
privileged individual. Which brings us right
back to where we began with that crucial, unsettling
question. We spend so much time analyzing history
through grand economic tides, deep social structures,
or inevitable dynastic decay. But Charles VI's
story forces you to stop and ask. How much of
the fate of nations, its survival of dynasties,
and the continuation of centuries -long conflicts
can truly hinge upon the random, unpredictable
chaos contained within the mental health of a
single individual? It's a profound thought. The
English conquered France not just because of
superior strategy, but because their main opponent
was incapacitated by a psychological illness.
The most consequential 42 years of 15th century
French history were dictated by the state of
Charles VI's mind, a state that swung violently
between the beloved and the mad. A truly profound
and deeply unsettling historical reality. Thank
you for taking this complex, dramatic, deep dive
with us. My pleasure. We'll see you next time.