Abstract
Agnès de France (1260–1325), who was the youngest daughter of Saint Louis and Marguerite de Provence, is a little-known princess. She was, however, a remarkable political figure, whose role in government in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries demonstrates the vital influence of Capetian royal women. After marrying Robert II of Burgundy (duke from 1272–1306) in 1273, Agnès became duchess of Burgundy and was involved in the administration of this duchy for over half a century. Her influence was especially significant during the rule of her sons, the dukes Hugues V (1306–15) and Eudes IV (1315–49). In light of this, it is important to try to understand how she obtained power and to delineate the characteristics of female government in this period, above all during her widowhood. The aims of this article are thus to shed new light on Agnès’ career and to explore the foundations of her power, that were interlinked with her various positions as a woman: daughter of King Louis XI, wife of Duke Robert II and mother of the dukes Hugues V and Eudes IV.
For all that women’s history in the Middle Ages is a rapidly expanding field of scholarship, many queens and princesses remain under-researched or even totally unknown.1 Agnès de France, the youngest daughter of Saint Louis and Marguerite de Provence, has thus never received a specific study and has only been mentioned as a digression in a handful of works focused on the duchy of Burgundy or on the succession of Louis X (le Hutin) in 1314.2 However, Agnès should be seen as remarkable in many ways.3 Born around 1260, she became duchess of Burgundy in 1273 through marriage to Robert II (duke from 1272), before she governed at her husband’s side and gave him ten children. Following his death in 1306, she then took control of the duchy as regent (baillistre) for her minor son, Hugues V (duke 1306–15). The sources concerning her activity increase in this period and reveal her political skill and the importance of her decisions. She arranged marriages for her children, participated in the financial administration of Burgundy, decided to expel Jews from the duchy in 1306, defended ducal interests in the face of neighbouring principalities and fought ferociously to maintain the rights of her granddaughter, Jeanne of Navarre, after the death of Louis X in 1316. She died in 1325 after spending more than a half-century at the helm of the duchy.
The life of Agnès de France sheds light on how a principality in the French kingdom could be governed at the turn of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, as well as how the Capetian royal family was afflicted by turmoil in the age of the sons of Philippe le Bel. Above all, the aim of this study is to understand the characteristics of Agnès’ government and to elucidate the foundations of her authority and power. As a princess, these foundations rested primarily on her different roles as a woman: daughter, wife, widow, mother and grandmother. Agnès’ career shows that even whilst she governed Burgundy, she wholeheartedly embraced the place available to her at the heart of the Capetian lineage. Likewise, analysis of her political actions demonstrates that she knew how to exploit the different dimensions of her status as a woman and how to draw on her roles as a king’s daughter, as a ducal consort and as a mother, in order to exercise power more securely. It is especially worth delineating the characteristics of her power during the minority of her son. This is all the more imperative because, at several points, one can see potential tensions between the duchess’ different roles, most notably between her prestigious positions as a royal daughter and as a ducal wife.
In order to analyse how the duchess governed, this article is divided chronologically into three sections, which correspond to Agnès’ different positions as a woman. The first section will focus on Agnès’ role as a duchess, through examining the issues at stake in her marriage to Robert II, the political activity of the princely couple and her subsequent government as a widow. The second section will then analyse the manner in which Agnès exercised power as a mother and took leadership of the ducal house of Burgundy after 1306. Finally, the last section will explore how she utilized her status as a daughter of the king to legitimize her authority and strengthen her power, notably after the canonization of Saint Louis in 1297.
I
Initially, Agnès de France is only mentioned in sources that discuss her relations with her male relatives or husband.4 She first surfaces in archival records at the time of her betrothal to Robert of Burgundy, the third son of Hugues IV (duke 1218–72). The marriage contract for this union is lost, but the donation ante nuptias for Agnès’ endowment in the event of her husband’s death is still extant.5 According to this act (20 October 1272), Hugues IV promised the sister of King Philippe III a dower worth 7,000 livres tournois of annual revenues, that were to be taken from Vergy, Montcenis, Brancion, Buxy, Beaumont-sur-Grosne, La Colonne-sur-Saône, Chalon-sur-Saône, Beaune and Nuits-Saint-Georges. In case these lands proved insufficient, the castle of Argilly was also pledged in order to reach the promised sum. Just as for other aristocratic women, the grant of dower was of vital importance. As ‘an acquisition by a widow after her husband’s death, comprising a share of his property’, the transfer of a jointure was designed to guarantee a noblewoman’s security after her husband’s death and to allow her to live respectably according to her rank.6 In addition to these financial considerations, it was the jointure that guaranteed Agnès her title of dowager duchess.
The proposed marriage between Robert and Agnès and the grant of her dower cast light upon the troubled situation in Burgundy in autumn 1272.7 On 26 September, knowing that he was close to death, Hugues IV named his third son Robert as his successor in the duchy, despite the fact that Robert was not the rightful heir according to some local customs.8 Robert’s two older brothers, Eudes de Nevers and Jean de Bourbon, had died respectively in 1266 and 1267, but according to the customs of the duchy, which followed the principle of représentation successorale, the territory ought to have passed to Eudes’ eldest daughter Yolande.9 Nonetheless, in parallel with other contemporary successions, the duke Hugues IV expressed his preference for his oldest surviving son to succeed him in order to continue his lineage and maintain political continuity. Conscious of the irregular nature of his choice, contrary to custom, and of the difficulties that Robert would face in having his claim to the duchy recognized, Hugues IV sought to obtain royal support. To this end, on 24 October 1272, only four days after the premarital agreement, the duke asked King Philippe III to accept the homage of his son for the duchy. The correlation between these two developments suggests that the betrothal of Robert and Agnès was intended to guarantee the king’s support in the war of succession to come. As the old duke knew that the rival inheritance claims would be judged in the royal court, marrying his son to the king’s sister represented an indispensable guarantee. Robert’s marriage to Agnès de France thus strengthened the ties uniting the royal and ducal families.
Recent research on medieval dowers has shown that the allocated lands were always connected to political concerns and reflected practices of government.10 As well as being designed to attract royal support, the selection of lands promised to Agnès of France formed part of a legal strategy devised by Hugues IV and his jurists. Since Robert’s accession—above all to the title of duke—was not assured, Hugues IV undertook on 23 October 1272 to give a collection of territories to Robert immediately, that for the most part corresponded to those assigned to the princess for her dower.11 This layering of grants had two objectives. On the one hand, the gift made to Robert offered a guarantee to Agnès that she would receive her dower—even if Robert was not duke. On the other hand, by ensuring that the majority of the domains reserved for Agnès corresponded to those given to his son, Hugues IV made her dower a legal impediment to subsequent challenges to the donation of 23 October. Even if the daughters of Eudes de Nevers contested the arrangements relating to the ducal title, the grant of dower could not be challenged and thus guaranteed a rich inheritance to Robert.
Following the death of Hugues IV at the end of October 1272, Robert’s rights were contested by Eudes’ eldest daughter Yolande and her husband, Robert de Béthune. In order to cement the support of the Crown, the union of Robert and Agnès was hurriedly celebrated in July 1273. Just before the wedding, Robert confirmed the dower promised to Agnès, in a move designed both to reaffirm the grant of his father and to express his own assent to the union.12 In line with the testamentary provisions of Louis IX, Agnès was also endowed with up to 10,000 livres tournois.13 Even so, the succession crisis in Burgundy was not resolved until 1278, when Robert triumphed and Yolande was defeated. This outcome was partly a result of legal factors, but it can mostly be attributed to political ones. Philippe III’s support proved decisive, and the marriage of Agnès and Robert played a vital role in securing this. For example, two narrative sources from shortly after the affair highlight the marriage’s impact in explaining how the conflict was resolved.14 From the new duke’s perspective, the nuptials confirmed that he possessed royal approval and allowed him to legitimize his authority. For the king, there was every reason to defend Robert’s interests. In fact, Philippe III would have wanted to ensure that the new duke was in his debt, to uphold the rights of his sister as duchess and to limit the power of Yolande and her husband, the future count of Flanders. In large part, it was therefore thanks to the marriage with Agnès, as sister of the king, that the duchy of Burgundy passed to Robert.
Between the celebration of her marriage and the death of her husband in 1306, the activity of Agnès de France is difficult to reconstruct. Yet, a close analysis of the handful of documents that mention her suggests that she was active in ducal, and indeed regnal, politics. The fragments of a set of daily accounts from September 1277 to February 1278, which may have been linked to the household of the duke and duchess, show that Agnès travelled around with her husband and moved continually between Paris and the duchy of Burgundy.15 The fragments do not reveal the exact nature of her expenses or activity, but they set out her itinerary with remarkable precision and show that she made two round trips between the duchy and Paris in the space of four months. Since these fragments are merely flotsam from the administrative archives, it is difficult to know how representative this itinerary is. However, by examining it alongside the financial records of the principality, it is possible to analyse the duchess’ likely interest in administrative affairs. In the late thirteenth century, audits of accounts were itinerant and many of the documents from them are still extant, meaning that one can compare the places where accounts were examined between September 1277 and February 1278 with the princess’ travels. This reveals that the princely couple was systematically present when many audits took place.16 Although it is difficult to know whether the duchess played any role in this process—all the more so given that she was still only twenty and is never named amongst the auditors—she must have had some understanding of the functioning of the financial administration and of its personnel. Equally, Agnès’ involvement in administrative business is evidenced by the statement of a ducal official in March 1304 that she was entrusted with the keys to the chartrier of the castle of Rouvres.17 This unique reference does not make it possible to determine her exact relationship with the archives of the principality, but it does show that she was an active participant in administrative affairs.
The activity of Agnès de France ought also to be examined in the light of her partnership with Robert II.18 Although few sources discuss the actions of the couple and how the duke regarded his wife, the will and codicils of Robert II indicate that they had a close relationship and that she enjoyed his absolute confidence in the political sphere.19 Indeed, in his testament of March 1298, Robert named Agnès as regent in the event that his heir was a minor. Another clause was also added to this stipulation: if the duchess remarried, her responsibilities as guardian would be reassigned to the counsellors who had initially been appointed to support her in government. The duchess was therefore not expected to rule alone, in the way her husband had done; even more importantly, she could do so only on condition that she remained a widow. It would have been politically dangerous for Robert II to leave her in charge of the principality following a remarriage, since the duchy would have passed into the hands of a new spouse. Agnès’ appointment as regent also conforms in part to customary law, and so it alone is not sufficient to show that she had the duke’s complete trust to govern. For proof of this trust, it is necessary to turn to the legacies that Robert bequeathed to Agnès, since he made plans to leave her with possessions worth far more than her jointure alone, that was already substantial. In addition to the revenues promised in 1272, he granted her the house of Jugny and half of the acquisitions made during their marriage—that is to say the equivalent of the customary dower in Burgundy.20 As a result, Agnès was promised the revenues of both her prearranged dower and a dower according to Burgundian custom. In his codicil of 1306, the duke also offered a reminder that the total value of the jointure of 1273 had not been reached and that his wife could demand this.21 In sum, Agnès could thus expect a dower worth 7,000 livres tournois in annual revenues, the 10,000 livres tournois of her dowry, half the acquisitions made between 1273 and 1306 and the ducal residence of Jugny. Together, these legacies were considerable.
The duke’s confidence in Agnès is likewise shown by the fact that she appears amongst the executors of his will. This supports the argument that the aim of all the aforementioned provisions was to enable her to assume power in a secure and peaceful transition. Through his testament and the codicil of 1306, the duke must have intended not only for Agnès to be able to live comfortably, but also for her to control a territorial and financial base that would allow her to govern without impediment. Patently, these provisions strengthen the case that the princess was associated with the government of Robert II before 1306 and that he accepted her as his replacement, as well as evidencing the trust that he placed in her to defend ducal interests.
Agnès became a widow upon Robert II’s death on 21 March 1306, whilst she was in her forties and in the midst of her political career. This new stage in the princess’ life marked an abrupt change in her exercise of power. Shortly after her husband’s funeral, she and her eldest son Hugues V (duke 1306–15) travelled to Paris, and on 13 April they formalized the succession. The testamentary provisions of Robert II in favour of his wife were confirmed, and Agnès accepted the governorship of her son and the government of Burgundy in his name.22 Consequently, Robert’s death allowed Agnès to obtain her dower and all the other possessions that he had bequeathed to her. The procedure for the assignment of her dower is accessible through an extant evaluation made following Robert’s death, probably just after the agreements of 13 April.23 At the beginning of the evaluation, four men were charged with holding an inquest—Jean de Corcelles, Jean d’Arc, Pierre de Pommard and Jean des Granges—all of whom are well known as members of the ducal administration. Given their offices, these representatives of ducal authority would have been integrated into political, social and economic networks at a local level, that would have allowed them to implement the task entrusted to them rapidly and as conscientiously as possible. They conducted the inquest through a series of examinations of individuals, speaking under oath, who managed the revenues that constituted the dower: these jurors were all ducal officers who had been in place before 21 March. In addition to being administrative procedures, however, inquests should be regarded as tools of government.24 The presence of the ducal officers and the summons to those examined would have undoubtedly generated interest in the duchy shortly after the death of the prince. Therefore, the inquest was in itself an opportunity for the four officers to represent and embody the duchess’ assumption of the governorship of Burgundy in conformity with custom and with Robert II’s wishes.
During the twenty-three years of her widowhood, Agnès de France managed her dower with great care, along with the collection of property that she had received by inheritance from her late husband. Archival records thus make it possible to perceive the duchess acting ‘as a lord’, and a specific administration was even established in order to manage her revenues.25 Fragments from the administrative archives—notably the accounts of a bailli and a castellan—show that this administration for Agnès’ dower operated in parallel with that of the ducal domain, but was staffed by the same men.26 Beyond day-to-day matters, Agnès also worked to expand her collection of property, as evidenced by her many acquisitions of lands, woods and rents. Likewise, she did not hesitate to remind her son that he was liable for cases where his officers committed abuses and encroached upon her rights, to which she was consistently attentive. These moments of tension are interesting because they show that in certain circumstances the duchess was faced with conflicts of interest between her own concerns and those of her children. This issue was all the more complicated because their interests were entangled. Whilst Agnès was attentive to her own property and rights, she nonetheless led and participated in the government of the principality and watched over the interests of her children, including, above all, the new duke. In November 1311, Agnès agreed to remit the full total of her dowry in exchange for what she owed to her son, and to forgive wrongs done by his officers who had infringed her rights.27 This action ‘for the wider good’ was clearly favourable to her son. Yet, for all that the princess seems at first glance to have lost out, it is important to note that she had no interest in a long and onerous conflict with her son and his administration, on which she also depended in part. In this light, her decision can perhaps be interpreted as a highly pragmatic one considering her financial situation and that of her son, as debts had been accumulating since the end of the thirteenth century, and money was in short supply for day-to-day affairs in Burgundy. Agnès therefore exercised power here in a way that bridged her own interests and those of her children, especially Hugues V. It is now time to look further at her government and participation in the administration of the duchy in the capacity of a mother.
II
Following the accords of 13 April 1306, Agnès de France obtained the wardship of her minor son and the government of the duchy. The powers that she exercised were those of a mother. Burgundian custom gave a widow the right to manage the possessions of her children if they were minors, and it was in this capacity that Agnès became regent (baillistre).28 Whilst contemporary sources tend to suggest that her son’s minority came to an end in 1307, the duchess in fact continued to govern far beyond this date.
Agnès was personally involved in the management of the ducal domain from the spring of 1306 onwards. For instance, she systematically participated in the auditing of accounts between 1306 and 1309, and she perhaps continued in this role thereafter, although the extant sources do not cover the period between 1310 and 1325.29 Just as in her husband’s lifetime, a more or less fixed group of auditors accompanied her during these inspections of accounts to audit the financial activities of Burgundian officers. The rapidity with which the princess took control of administrative affairs is remarkable and proves that matters of government were by no means foreign to her. Looking again at the will of Robert II of 1298, it is clear that Agnès’ interest and skill in administrative affairs had long since been affirmed, since the duke indicated that the duchess ought to watch over the two men who would take charge of the financial administration. No doubt because Agnès was a woman, the group of auditors also included a second lady in its ranks on seven occasions between 1308 and 1309: Agnès, lady of Fontaine.30 The minority of Hugues V is the only moment in the history of Capetian Burgundy (1004–1361) where contemporary sources attest that a woman other than the duchess was present amongst the personnel responsible for judging the activities of princely agents. Evidently, the dame de Fontaine was present as a member of Agnès’ entourage, just as she was also a Burgundian noblewoman. This hints at a difference in practices that emerged under the auspices of female rule.
The duchess’ influence is also perceptible in transformations in the principality’s administration. In her will of 1323, Agnès notably bequeathed 30 livres digenoises to her chamberlain (chambollant) Simon de Beaufort, whom she had ‘persuaded to come [to Burgundy] from France’.31 This reference shows that the person at the head of her household was specially recruited by her ‘in France’, most likely from within the heart of the royal administration. Whilst the wider mechanics of Agnès’ household, as also outlined in her will and codicil, are beyond the scope of this article, it is worth following the work of Hervé Mouillebouche by observing that Agnès’ presence in Burgundy allowed French courtly and administrative practices to enter into the duchy.32
In parallel with her role in the administration of Burgundy, Agnès de France very quickly introduced what might be termed a personal political agenda, as just a few weeks after the death of Robert II, all Jews were expelled from the duchy.33 Primarily as a result of this development, historians have often portrayed the minority of Hugues V as a period of weak ducal authority and of royal interference in the affairs of the principality.34 Yet the previous discussion has shown that it is not credible to think that the duchess was subservient to the Crown either in the government of the duchy or in her decision to expel the Jews. Furthermore, her choice—the causes of which we shall return to—seems to have been in direct opposition to the tolerant policies towards Jews advocated by Robert II in 1302.35 A political reversal therefore occurred under Agnès, who ordered the expulsion of the Jews and confiscation of their possessions almost before her husband was buried. The recent work of Maïwenn Jouquand on the expulsion of Jews provides evidence of Agnès’ close attention to the execution of this affair.36 Consequently, the governorship of Burgundy by Agnès de France cannot be viewed as a period of inertia. On the contrary, these events show that the duchess acted with full ducal authority in the name of her son.
Agnès asserted her power across Burgundy as its dowager duchess and regent, but her political influence also stretched far beyond this region and into the highest echelons of France and the empire. Political geography favoured the princess here, as the duchy of Burgundy possessed a particular strategic importance. Even though it was a principality of the realm of France, its dukes also possessed rights and lands on the other side of the Saône, that formed the frontier between the kingdom of France and the empire. This meant that the duchy was positioned between these two power blocs and could maintain close relations with the neighbouring principalities of the empire, namely the Dauphiné of Viennois and the counties of Burgundy and Savoy. Within this context, Agnès asserted herself as a regional actor who could not be ignored. For example, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, she was named as the favoured arbitrator of a conflict between the count of Savoy and the Dauphin of Viennois.37 In May 1308, she was included amongst the guarantors of a truce agreed between the two parties, and she and her son, as allies of the count of Savoy, pledged to compel the count to respect the settlement. Despite these efforts, tensions did not die down in the ensuing months and years, and in 1323 and 1324, Pope Jean XXII asked the duchess to intervene once more and to re-establish concord between the two princely enemies.38 Agnès’ attempts at mediation failed, but these developments still show she was a high-ranking actor whose prestige and capabilities were recognized by neighbouring princes and by the supreme pontiff. As such, she should be regarded as a powerful woman with substantial influence at the highest level of politics in Western Europe.
As a mother, Agnès secured the wardship of her son Hugues but also played a vital role in the lives of her other minor children. She exercised legal authority over them as their only surviving parent, and she notably planned and organized their marriages. In fact, one of the most fundamental ways in which she exercised power was through crafting a strategy for the marital alliances, and by extension the succession, of the ducal house.
After the death of Robert II, Agnès immediately began to arrange betrothals between her children and members of other powerful families neighbouring the duchy. On 4 May 1306, for instance, King Edward I of England acknowledged that he had received letters from her about a proposed marriage between her daughter Marie and his nephew Édouard, heir to the county of Bar.39 He also asked her to pay the promised dowry in advance in order to clear his nephew’s debts, and a marriage contract was then formalized on 13 June.40 In 1310, in order to strengthen ties between the duchy of Burgundy and county of Savoy, Agnès’ daughter Blanche in turn wedded Édouard, heir to the count of Savoy.41 For a similar reason, on 16 June 1321, Agnès and her son Eudes IV also agreed with the count of Savoy that Eudes’ youngest brother Robert would marry the count’s granddaughter Jeanne.42 This union was a significant boon, as it allowed Robert to acquire the county of Tonnerre just to the north of Burgundy. Overall, therefore, planning the marriages of her children allowed Agnès to build alliances with neighbouring powers and to establish her duchy as a key player in French and imperial politics.
Agnès’ influence was equally decisive in determining the succession to Burgundy. She would have been all too familiar with the turmoil in the duchy that followed the death of Hugues IV, and she therefore prioritized the secure handover of the ducal title and worked to maintain peace between her children. After Hugues V died in 1315, she quashed a challenge to the new duke, Eudes IV (1315–49), from his younger brother Louis, prince of Morea. On 3 July she thus acted as guarantor to an agreement made between the brothers, in which Louis agreed to abandon any claim to the inheritance of his father and Eudes IV in return for an annuity of 4,000 livres tournois.43
These developments all support the case that Agnès’ authority was not limited to the day-to-day administration of the duchy during the minority of Hugues V (which probably ended in 1307 when he turned fourteen), but that she was instead able to govern using her role and status as mother right up to her death. Indeed, after the accession of her son Eudes in 1315, Agnès fades away in administrative records, but it is evident that she remained a key figure in the duchy and an éminence grise beside her son. By virtue of her position, Agnès can finally also be seen as the head of the house of Burgundy, whose interests she defended with vigour.
As a royal daughter and ducal wife, widow and mother, Agnès would have known the extent to which concerns about succession lay at the heart of the practice of government. In 1316, she herself played a major role in the disputes within the royal family that followed the death of Louis X. In the context of this very untypical succession crisis, Agnès opposed the claim of the late king’s brother, Philippe de Poitiers. From the announcement of King Louis’ death, she instead vigorously defended the rights of her granddaughter, Jeanne de Navarre, who was the daughter of Louis and Marguerite de Bourgogne. This is not the place to revisit the full story of the crisis, but it is worth underlining the part played by the duchess and emphasizing how she acted in her capacity as a grandmother.44 On 5 July 1316, exactly a month after the death of Louis X, Agnès demanded the custody and wardship of her grandchild.45 Her letter of commission to the proctors appointed to plead her case shows that she based her arguments in large part on her roles as a woman: daughter, widow, mother and grandmother. These claims were intended to offer a reminder of her place at the intersection between the royal and ducal families, whilst the arguments justifying her right to Jeanne’s tutelage rested above all on her relationship to the young girl as her grandmother. Yet, beyond the proximity of their family ties, the document also aimed to assert Jeanne’s legitimacy in the face of scandalous revelations from two years earlier about adultery committed by the girl’s mother, Queen Marguerite. Through presenting herself as Jeanne’s grandmother and also as the daughter of Saint Louis, Agnès was putting forward an argument that ‘true descent’ made Jeanne the direct successor to the Saint-King via her parents. The logic here was thus to legitimize Jeanne’s rights and offer a reminder of her full membership of the royal family.
Eudes IV and Philippe de Poitiers subsequently reached an agreement on 17 July 1316.46 This allowed Agnès to obtain the wardship of her granddaughter on condition that Jeanne was not married without the consent of multiple members of the royal family, and, in return, Philippe became regent whilst awaiting the birth of Louis X’s unborn child with his wife Clémence of Hungary. However, the death of that baby, Jean I le Posthume, and Philippe’s ensuing claim to the throne prompted the Burgundian party to act in defence of Jeanne’s rights in late 1316. Eudes IV and Agnès challenged Philippe’s succession primarily through appealing to the justice of the peers of France. To this end, in December 1316, the duke and his mother wrote to the count of Flanders to seek his support.47 Agnès’ letter sheds light on the way in which she conceptualized royal power, at least as she intended to defend it for her granddaughter. In her eyes, Jeanne, as the sole child of King Louis X, deserved to inherit her father’s full rights to the realms of France and Navarre and the counties of Brie and Champagne. Consequently, Agnès considered that the crown ought to pass to a woman!
Yet, the same letter also makes clear that there was only ever a question of a judicial challenge rather than any resort to arms. Agnès had everything to gain from the success of this challenge, since the Burgundian party would have been considerably strengthened and Eudes IV would have been able to steer royal policy. Although her side’s efforts ultimately met with failure, the affair is still reflective of the duchess’ political ambition and of her ability to use her position within the Capetian family to further her designs. The episode likewise exemplifies how different elements of Agnès’ life as a woman—as a wife, widow, mother, grandmother and daughter—combined and complemented each other as she exercised her power in an aristocratic, or perhaps one might say familial, context. Aware that she belonged to a royal lineage and was the daughter of a king and saint, Agnès used her status as a daughter of the king as a token of legitimacy and as political leverage. It is this dimension of her power that must now be considered further.
III
Agnès’ status as the daughter of the king of France is an important but complex topic for understanding the exercise of power by Capetian royal women.48 It is all the more essential to explore because, in the early fourteenth century, political legitimacy continued to be underpinned by blood ties.49
Analysis of Agnès’ titles in documents bearing her seal can begin to shed light on how she was able to embody and represent her status as a daughter of Louis IX. The only document from before the death of Robert II that mentions her standing as a king’s daughter is an agreement over coinage made between her and her husband on the one hand, and the churchmen of the duchy of Burgundy on the other.50 This mention of Agnès’ connection to the dead king is not coincidental, since the agreement was made following clerical complaints about the debasement of coinage under Robert II, meaning that the reference to Louis IX could have been used to strike a reassuring note in guaranteeing a return to monetary stability. This is especially likely when one considers that mention of this king was a topos in royal ordonnances in the fourteenth century designed to promise a return to stronger currency.51 Conversely, no other document bearing Agnès’ own seal mentions her position as Louis IX’s daughter prior to Robert II’s death in 1306.
The canonization of Louis IX in 1297 may be regarded as marking a turning point, however, since references to Saint Louis afterwards became commonplace in the duchess’ acts. In total, out of a corpus of twenty-six acts that were formally issued by Agnès and that have been possible to consult for this study as extant originals or copies, half refer to the duchess as ‘daughter of the king’. It is not possible to discern an exact system for the usage of this title, but it is possible to spot certain patterns. Tellingly, the documents in which Agnès is not entitled ‘daughter of the king’ were linked to the day-to-day government of the principality and include orders, a quittance, letters of commission and so forth. On the other hand, the acts in which the princess did claim to be ‘daughter of the king’ were usually more politically important or solemn in nature. They include documents that were directly linked to Agnès’ person or rights (such as the jointure agreement, acts relating to the obligations of her sons and her will and codicil), documents that were connected to devotion to the Saint-King, and documents that extended beyond the routine government of the principality (such as marriage contracts, the defence of Jeanne de Navarre’s rights and so forth). In addition, the title seems most often to have been employed when Agnès was addressing high-ranking individuals such as princes or ecclesiastical dignitaries. Considering that the title was also used almost all the time in marriage contracts, the reference to direct links with the king seems to have been employed as a key argument in the development of matrimonial and dynastic arrangements with other princely houses. In presenting herself as the daughter of a saint and of a king, Agnès imbued the ducal line with all the prestige of Louis IX and the royal family. The duchess’ choice of title was therefore in no way trivial and was instead utilized in acts where she wished to affirm her authority.
This analysis of titles can be supplemented by an analysis of seals used by Agnès. Whilst the duchess’ employment of titles varied according to the purpose of her acts, her seals offered a consistent reminder of her membership of the royal family and position as daughter of the king. Examination of her seals thus sheds further light on her government as a woman who united the Capetian lineages of France and Burgundy.
The oval great seal of Agnès depicts her standing amidst decorative architecture with a coat of arms on either side, the first of which, in the place of honour to her right, bears the arms of France with a shield semée de lys (covered in lilies), and the second of which, in the subordinate position on the left, depicts the arms of Burgundy bearing six bendlets (diagonal stripes) within a bordure (thick border). Agnès herself is shown holding a fleur de lys in her right hand (Figure 1). The accompanying text, the oldest known example of which comes from 1284, offers a reminder of her position as daughter of the king, too, as it reads: ‘the seal of Agnès, daughter of the king of France, duchess of Burgundy’ (‘S(ignum) AGNETIS FILIE REGIS FRANC/COR(um) DUCISSE BURGONDIE’). These choices emphasize how the princess belonged to the royal dynasty. The position of the shields is particularly important in this regard as it constitutes an inversion of the classic practice whereby the husband’s coat of arms was put in the place of honour.52 A comparable inversion is found again in Agnès’ counterseal (Figure 2) and small seal (Figure 3), that depict a shield with the arms of France in the first half and the arms of Burgundy in the second. The analyses of Michel Nassiet and Jean-Luc Chassel have argued that the decision to place one’s father’s arms in the place of honour was probably regarded as a statement of the superiority of royal descent over that of one’s husband.53 This inversion was not unique to Agnès and was also employed by other contemporary princesses such as Mahaut d’Artois. Consequently, the seal suggests that Agnès felt that her marriage to Robert II was, to borrow Chassel’s words, ‘clearly a marriage to a social inferior’.54
The great seal of Agnès de France (ADCO, B 11203).
The counterseal of Agnès de France (ADCO, B 11203).
The small seal of Agnès de France (ADCO, PS 512).
Two other seals also merit discussion here: the seal of the bailli of Chalon and the seal of the dean of La Chapelle-le-Duc in the ducal palace at Dijon. For the management of her dower, Agnès de France employed a bailli based at Chalon-sur-Saône, and the seal of her bailli Henri Dulphie is thus adorned with a shield that mirrors that of his patroness, with the arms of France again placed in the first half and the arms of Burgundy in the second (Figure 4). The text of the seal is unfortunately damaged, making it impossible to know whether a specific title was displayed relating to the bailli’s service to the duchess. However, in general, the seal still reflects his status as her officer, and when used, it would have highlighted how power was exercised in her name. Meanwhile, the seal of 1310 of Pierre Gromet, dean of La Chapelle-le-Duc, for its part reflects the favourable ties that the princess and her son maintained with this church. Pierre Gromet’s seal features the Virgin Mary, who is depicted facing forwards, holding Christ with her left arm and standing between two trees that are each decorated with a coat of arms: the shield to her right depicts the arms of France and Burgundy impaled (divided by a vertical partition), whilst the one on her left bears the ducal arms (Figure 5). The place of honour is here reserved for the duchess, who fully embodies the government of the duchy. More broadly, it is also worth noting that, under Hugues V, relations between this church in Dijon and the ducal family were strengthened and a policy of rapprochement was pursued. Hugues V was the first duke to express a wish—albeit unfulfilled—to be buried within the church, whilst Agnès founded a chapel there in honour of her father, Saint Louis.
The seal of Henri Dulphie (Archives Départementales de la Saône-et-Loire, H 1002).
Cast of the seal of Pierre Gromet (Sigilla.fr, from ADCO, B 1023).
As the daughter of a saint, Agnès de France showed a particular piety and devotion towards her dead father. She is known to have founded two chapels in his honour, namely La Chapelle-le-Duc at Dijon and another at Lantenay.55 A third example in the castle of Montbard should also certainly be added to this list. Archaeologists have shown that a rebuild of this castle at the end of the thirteenth century included a chapel (from which part of a column was recovered), and although textual records do not reveal the origins of its dedication, later sources name it as the ‘chapelle Saint-Louis’.56 Alongside such chapels, Agnès also established masses for her father. In 1316, for example, she endowed the altar of the chapel of Saint-Louis de Dijon with an annual rent of 20 livres so that a mass could be sung every day in honour of her father.57 The filial piety and devotion that Agnès showed here must certainly have played a significant part in her life and manner of governing. Indeed, she also possessed the psalter with which Saint Louis may have learnt to read, and so it is possible to imagine that she had a daily routine of devotion towards this paternal figure.58 Perhaps this psalter, which she subsequently bequeathed to her daughter Jeanne, was even kept on her person and treated as a prestigious object that imbued her with her father’s aura.
Although Agnès’ devotion to Saint Louis was expressed through religious practices, it is also worth examining how it could have directly influenced the ways in which she exercised power. Considering that Saint Louis was viewed as a model of good government from the end of the thirteenth century, it seems very likely that the duchess would have wanted to follow in his footsteps. The expulsion of the Jews and the confiscation of their possessions in 1306 might indeed be interpreted in this light, since one can posit that Agnès’ devotion to her father was influential in this decision that ran counter to the wishes and policy of her late husband. Maïwenn Jouquand has suggested with good reason that the duchess’ choice stemmed from close collaboration with the Crown and followed on from her stay in Paris in spring 1306, and the coincidence of the expulsions from the kingdom of France and duchy of Burgundy in itself lends weight to this argument.59 However, there is also undoubtedly reason to think that the persona of Saint Louis was a driving force behind Agnès’ actions. As suggested by Anne-Hélène Allirot, the expulsion may well have allowed the duchess to align herself with the memory of her father.60 This is all the more likely given that kings of France in the fourteenth century referred explicitly to the Saint-King when promulgating ordonnances for the expulsion of Jews.61 Similarly, in 1304, when Philippe le Bel exhorted Robert II to enforce his ordonnance on the Jews and moneylending, reference was again made to the Saint-King.62 How could the duchess then ignore her father’s reputation? Devotion to the Saint-King must surely be seen as part of Agnès’ decision-making process, for all that this is not to deny that other political and financial motivations also lay behind her choice here. Patently, the duchess was left with very large debts by her husband, meaning that the confiscation of Jewish property allowed her to find the resources needed for repayments. Yet, all the same, one can postulate that Robert II and Agnès genuinely disagreed about the treatment of Jews. After her husband was dead, the widowed Agnès could then act in accordance with her own wishes.
IV
Agnès de France was a colourful figure. She played an active part in the government of the duchy of Burgundy and the political life of the realm, whilst remaining aware of the grandeur of her dynasty and the value of her marriage with Robert II. Through exploiting the different facets of her life as a woman—as a daughter, wife, widow, mother and grandmother—Agnès managed to extend her sphere of influence and to integrate herself within the heart of aristocratic networks. This undoubtedly allowed her to wield considerable power, but it should not be forgotten that she was bound to the men around her and on whom she depended. During the duchess’ marriage, although she seems to have governed alongside Robert II, she did not have the final say in politics, as is evidenced by her position vis-à-vis the Jews of Burgundy. It was only after her husband’s death that the duchess proceeded with the Jews’ expulsion and took charge of government. Similarly, although in 1316 she defended the rights of her granddaughter and schemed against Philippe de Poitiers, it was her son, Eudes IV, who was considered to be the chief of the Burgundian party. It was the two men, for that matter, who concluded the agreements designed to resolve this affair. Indeed, whenever ducal authority fell to an adult man, the princess’ presence in archival records becomes fainter, in spite of the fact that she continued to participate in government. It was only her status as a widow and above all as a regent and guardian—and by extension as a mother—that allowed her to come to the fore after 1306.
Both the clear and the obscure parts of Agnès’ life raise questions about the limits of modern perspectives on how power was exercised by women. The duchess’ career shows that her governmental activity for the most part depended on power that was fundamentally rooted in her family and dynastic ties. Blood and awareness of lineage were always what took precedence for her, and her intervention in the royal succession crisis of 1316 offers a case in point.63 For Agnès, governing in this instance meant asserting her position at the heart of the Capetian family. In light of the extant sources and details of her life, one might posit that, as a widow, she perhaps did not ordinarily govern in a different manner than a man of the same rank.64 However, the issue of gender was much more important in constraining her political actions during her marriage, how she accessed power and how she was able to delineate a sphere of activity that she could call her own.65 Other aspects of her government were also tied specifically to her position as a female regent, notably including her need to settle the debts left by her late husband (that prompted her to confiscate the possessions of the Jews) and her inclusion of a woman in the commission of auditors charged with examining accounts.
Ultimately, after half a century spent at the head of the duchy of Burgundy, first as a wife and then as a mother and widow, Agnès de France died at the ducal castle of Lantenay in December 1325. She left a deep mark on the history of the Capetian duchy of Burgundy, and, today, her life offers an invitation to scholars to re-examine the history of this principality in light of how other women also exercised power and governed there.
Footnotes
This argument follows comments in Sophie Brouquet, Capetiennes: les reines de France au Moyen Âge (Xe–XIVesiècle) (Paris, 2020) and in Kathleen Nolan (ed.), Capetian Women (New York, 2003). For Capetian queens and princesses, see also: Anne-Hélène Allirot, Filles de roy de France: princesses royales, mémoire de Saint Louis et conscience dynastique (Turnhout, 2011); Christelle Balouzat-Loubet, Le Gouvernement de la comtesse Mahaut d’Artois (1302–1329) (Turnhout, 2014). For a recent appraisal of the rich bibliography for the history of medieval women more generally, see Didier Lett and Camille Noûs, ‘Les Médiévistes et l’histoire des femmes et du genre: douze ans de recherche’, Genre & Histoire, 26 (2020), http://journals.openedition.org/genrehistoire/5594; see also Éric Bousmar et al. (eds), Femmes de pouvoir, femmes politiques durant les derniers siècles du Moyen Âge et au cours de la première Renaissance (Brussels, 2012); Heather J. Tanner (ed.), Medieval Elite Women and the Exercise of Power, 1100–1400 (London, 2019).
For chronological surveys of the government of Agnès de France, see Ernest Petit, Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne de la race capétienne, vol. 7 (Dijon, 1901); Jean Richard, Les Ducs de Bourgogne et la formation du duché duXIeauXIVesiècle (Paris, 1954); and for the succession of Louis X: Paul Lehugeur, Histoire de Philippe le Long, roi de France (1316–1322) (Paris, 1897); Andrew W. Lewis, Royal Succession in Capetian France (Cambridge MA, 1981), trans. Le Sang royal: la famille capétienne et l’État (Paris, 1981).
Agnès’ rank as the daughter of a king and of a saint, but also as the wife of the most powerful magnate of the realm, makes her an exceptional figure and not a representative example. Nevertheless, her atypical position is helpful for highlighting the political mechanisms and social bonds at work in this period, especially in so far as these relate to the question of how power was exercised by aristocratic women. On this question, see Heather J. Tanner, Laura L. Gathagan and Lois L. Huneycutt (eds), ‘Introduction’, in Medieval Elite Women, ed. Tanner, 1–18; Michelle Bubenicek, ‘Et la dicte dame eust esté contesse de Flandres … Conscience de classe, image de soi et stratégie de communication chez Yolande Flandre, comtesse de Bar et dame de Cassel (1326–1395)’, in Femmes de pouvoir, femmes politiques durant les derniers siècles du Moyen Âge et au cours de la première Renaissance, ed. Éric Bousmar et al. (Brussels, 2012), 311–24.
For further discussion of the problems of the sources for the study of aristocratic women in this period, see Anneke B. Mulder-Bakker, ‘Jeanne of Valois: the power of a consort’, in Capetian Women, ed. Kathleen Nolan (New York, 2003), 253–69.
A[rchives] N[ationales de France], J 247.
Jean-Philippe Lévy and André Castaldo, Histoire du droit civil (Paris, 2002), 1404: ‘gain de survie donné à la veuve et constitué sur les propres de son mari défunt.’
David Bardey, ‘De la primogéniture dans la succession au duché de Bourgogne: réflexions au sujet de la succession du duc Hugues IV († 1272)’, Le Moyen Âge, 129 (2023), 701–22.
AN, J 252A, no. 7.
Quarrels between grandchildren and younger children were a regular occurrence in this period. An example is the Plantagenet succession in 1199, known as the casus regis. The death of King Richard I that year led to a dispute over whether he should be succeeded by his youngest brother John or by the children of another brother, Geoffrey (d. 1186), who had left behind a daughter, Aliénor and a posthumous son, Arthur. Eventually, it was John Lackland, Richard’s cadet brother, who succeeded at Arthur’s expense, as discussed by J. C. Holt, ‘The casus regis: the law and politics of succession in Plantagenet Dominions, 1185–1247’, in Colonial England 1066–1215 (London, 1997), 307–26. In Savoy, Count Amédée V also indicated in 1294 that the county should pass to the eldest surviving son in the absence of a clear decision over the succession, meaning that the claims of a deceased heirs’ descendants were not recognized. Laurent Ripart, ‘Non est consuetum in comitatu Sabaudie quod filia succedit patri in comitatu et possessione comitatus: genèse de la coutume savoyarde de l’exclusion des filles’, in Pierre II de Savoie ‘Le petit Charlemagne’ († 1268), ed. Bernard Andenmatten, Agostino Paravicini-Bagliani and Eva Pibiri (Lausanne, 2000), 324. In the county of Burgundy, meanwhile, the principle of male primogeniture for the succession was put into writing some years earlier, in 1279: Michelle Bubenicek, ‘De Jean l’aîné († 1306) à Jean II de Bourgogne († 1373): les sires de Montaigu, des héritiers déçus?’, Revue du Nord, 380 (2009), 259–93.
For general background on dower (that originated in Germanic and Roman law), see n. 6 above, and Régine Le Jan, ‘Aux origines du douaire médiéval (VIe–Xe siècles)’, Veuves et veuvage dans le haut Moyen Âge (Paris, 1993), 107–22; François Bougard, Laurent Feller and Régine Le Jan (eds), Dots et douaires dans le haut Moyen Âge (Rome, 2002). For dower in Burgundy, see Abel Ridard, Essai sur le douaire en Bourgogne (Dijon, 1906), 49–51; for contemporary parallels elsewhere, see Marie-Pierre Buscail, ‘Le Domaine royal: entre territoires et réseaux’, Études rurales, 188 (2001), 73–92; Nicolas Kermabon, ‘Ego dux Britannie dotavit eam: le douaire des duchesses de Bretagne (XIIIe–XVe siècle)’ (thèse de doctorat, Université de Rennes I, 2007); Nicolas Kermabon, ‘Le Douaire des épouses des comtes de Laval issus de la tige des Montmorency-Laval (XIIIe–XVe siècles)’, in Le Pouvoir et la foi au Moyen Âge: en Bretagne et dans l’Europe de l’Ouest, ed. Sylvain Soleil and Joëlle Quaghebeur (Rennes, 2010), 507–25.
AN, J 252A, no. 5.
AN, J 247.
AN, J 247.
Recueil des historiens des croisades: historiens occidentaux, vol. 2 (Paris, 1859), 463; François Guizot (ed.), Collection des mémoires relatifs à l’histoire de France (Paris, 1824), 590. Both sources are cited in Jean Richard, Les Ducs de Bourgogne et la formation du duché (Paris, 1954), 319.
A[rchives] D[épartementales de la] C[ôte d’]O[r], 33 F 6.
ADCO, B 312, fo. 15r, 22r, 26r, 60r, 51r, 39v et 37v.
B[ibliothèque] M[unicipale de] D[ijon], ms. 1105, fo. 85v.
The government of princely couples has been the subject of much revisionist work. For research on earlier centuries, see Sylvie Joye, Emmanuelle Santinelli-Foltz and Geneviève Bührer-Thierry (eds), ‘Le Couple dans le monde franc (Ve–XIIe siècle)’, Revue Médiévales, 65 (2013), especially its introduction: Sylvie Joye and Emmanuelle Santinelli-Foltz, ‘Le Couple: une définition difficile, des réalités multiples’, 5–18. For the late Middle Ages, see Stéphanie Richard, Vies et morts des couples princiers: les séparations conjugales dans la Maison d’Orléans (Paris, 2019); Florentin Briffaz, ‘Le Couple, un nouveau paradigme au sein des constructions familiales nobiliaires? Quelques réflexions à partir des noblesses savoyardes (XIIIe–XVe siècle)’, in Faire famille au Moyen Âge, ed. Florentin Briffaz and Prunelle Delleville (Lyon, 2023), 21–50.
ADCO, P[ièce] S[cellée] no. 497.
For the relationship between the prearranged jointure and customary jointure, see Jacqueline Vincent, ‘Douaire préfix et quotité coutumière dans la jurisprudence du Parlement de Paris au XIVe siècle’, Revue d’histoire de droit français et étranger, 48 (1970), 582–86.
AN, J 258, no. 5.
ADCO, 33 F 4 and PS 452.
ADCO, B 290.
Thierry Pécout (ed.), Quand gouverner c’est enquêter: les pratiques politiques de l’enquête princière, Occident, XIIIe–XIVesiècles (Paris, 2010).
The idea of acting ‘comme seigneur’ is used by Murielle Gaude-Ferragu, La Reine au Moyen Âge (Paris, 2014), 137.
ADCO, 33 F 131; Ernest Petit, ‘Comptes de Volnay en 1316 pour la duchesse douairière de Bourgogne, Agnès de France, fille de Saint Louis’, Bulletin historique et philologique, 1901, 389–95.
Urbain Plancher, Histoire générale et particulière de la Bourgogne, vol. 2 (Dijon, 1741), 142.
The situation here differs from that of the royal family in France, where a dowager queen could obtain the regency but was not assured of it: Gaude-Ferragu, Reine au Moyen Âge, 137–40.
BMD, ms. 1105.
Fontaine-lès-Dijon, dép. Côte-d’Or, chef-lieu du canton.
ADCO, PS 512.
Hervé Mouillebouche, L’Hôtel des ducs de Bourgogne à Dijon d’Eudes IV à Charles le Téméraire, vol. 2 (Dijon, 2019), 52–55.
For the background to this event and the royal expulsion of Jews from France, see William Chester Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews: From Philip Augustus to the Last Capetians (Philadelphia, 1989); Céline Balasse, 1306. L’Expulsion des juifs du royaume de France (Bruxelles, 2008).
Henri Dubois, ‘Monnaie, frontière et impôt: le duc et le roi en Bourgogne à la fin du XIIIe siècle’, in Monnaie, fiscalité et finances au temps de Philippe le Bel, ed. Philippe Contamine (Paris, 2007), 172.
AN, J 258, no. 4; Plancher, Histoire de la Bourgogne, 113.
Maïwenn Jouquand, ‘L’Expulsion des juifs du duché de Bourgogne en 1306: un jalon de l’histoire bourguignonne’, Annales de Bourgogne, 93 (2021), 39–51.
Peacemaking was a key prerogative of aristocratic women and played a major role in the lives of the queens of France, as discussed by Murielle Gaude-Ferragu, Reine au Moyen Âge, 122–30.
Auguste Coulon (ed.), Lettres secrètes et curiales de Jean XXII (1316–1334) relatives à la France, vol. 2 (Paris, 1906), 429–30, 574–75.
Thomas Rymer (ed.), Fœdera, Conventiones, Litteræ, revd. ed., vol. 1, pt. 2 (London, 1816), 987.
ADCO, PS 164.
ADCO, PS 195, 196.
Plancher, Histoire de la Bourgogne, 173.
ADCO, PS 460.
For the background to the crisis and Agnès’ role within it, see Lewis, Royal Succession, 188–90 (Sang royal, 198–201).
ADCO, PS 461.
Plancher, Histoire de la Bourgogne, 165.
Gustave Servois, ‘Documents inédits sur l’avènement de Philippe le Long’, Annuaire bulletin de la Société de l’histoire de France, 2 (1864), 68–69.
Allirot, Filles de roy de France, 403–04; Olivier Guyotjeannin, ‘Fils et filles de roi de France, du XIIe au XVe siècle: du lignage au royaume’, in Jean de Berry et l’écrit: les pratiques documentaires d’un fils de roi de France, ed. Olivier Guyotjeannin and Olivier Mattéoni (Paris, 2019), 113–31.
Bernard Guenée, ‘Les Généalogies entre l’histoire et la politique: la fierté d’être capétien, en France, au Moyen Âge’, Annales: économies, sociétés, civilisations, 33 (1978), 350.
ADCO, B 11203.
Allirot, Filles de roy de France, 395; Colette Beaune, Naissance de la Nation France (Paris, 1985), 141–43.
Allirot, Filles de roy de France, 440.
Ibid., 438–40.
Jean-Luc Chassel, ‘Le Nom et les armes: la matrilinéarité dans la parenté aristocratique du second Moyen Âge’, Droit et cultures, 64.2 (2012), http://journals.openedition.org/droitcultures/2849: ‘une franche hypogamie’.
These chapels are mentioned in the testament (1323) and codicil (1325) of the duchess: ADCO, PS 511 and 512.
Emmanuel Laborier, Rapport de fouilles (1996–97).
ADCO, G 1406.
Murielle Gaude-Ferragu, ‘Les Dernières Volontés de la reine de France: les deux testaments de Jeanne de Bourgogne, femme de Philippe VI de Valois (1329, 1336)’, Annuaire bulletin de la Société de l’histoire de France (2007), 23–66.
Jouquand, ‘Expulsion des juifs’, 42.
Allirot, Filles de roy de France, 404–06.
Beaune, Naissance, 143.
ADCO, B 11691.
Parallels with Agnès can be found in the life of Yolande of Flanders, lady of Cassel, whose political activity was also shaped by awareness of her lineage: Michelle Bubenicek, ‘Et la dicte dame eust esté contesse de Flandres …’, in Femmes de pouvoir, femmes politiques, ed. Bousmar, 312–15.
Cf. Bernard Delmaire, ‘Le Pouvoir de Mahaut d’Artois, comtesse d’Artois et de Bourgogne, en Artois (1302–1329)’, in Femmes de pouvoir, femmes politiques, ed. Bousmar, 267.
This analysis builds on the ideas of Helen E. Maurer, ‘Un Pouvoir à négocier: le cas de Marguerite d’Anjou’, in Femmes de pouvoir, femmes politiques, ed. Bousmar, 114.
Author notes
Translated by Andrew Green. David Bardey is a postdoctoral researcher at the Université de Namur and may be contacted at: [email protected]. The research for this article was conducted within the framework of his doctoral thesis entitled ‘Le Gouvernement des derniers ducs capétiens de Bourgogne’ and supervised by Bruno Lemesle and Xavier Hélary. He wishes to thank his supervisors, as well as Daniel Power for his comments and suggestions on the article, and Charlotte Crouch, Niall Ó Súilleabháin and Sarah Casano-Skaghammar for inducting him into the research group on ‘Rethinking the aristocracy in Capetian France’.
