The crises of succession

[Incongruous]

I have become rather interested in the Valois succession to the French crown.

I had always heard that it was a simple implementation of certain features of salic law, namely that the line had to be passed down through the males of the house.

I know that in 1316 the idea that only a male could ascend the throne of France and that when Philip V died such a practice now seemed legal.

But how did this stop houses of Plantagenet-Capet and Navarre-Évreux from claiming the throne?
It would seem that it did not and that the ascension of Philip de Valois was not legal, even though women could not inherit why couldn't their sons?

France was already in a bad position with England and many other Princes, Philip was not the great man like his father, so why did they allow this man to become king? Even his son's succession was suspect.

As I'm sure you can tell I have been reading far too much of Jonathan Sumption's excellent series on The Hundred Years War.

But despite that influence I am interested in the greater reasons for the decision, apart from the dislike of Edward as an English King.:smash:

[Incongruous]

Ok so, I have discovered that Philip de Valois was in command of a rather large armed affinity at the time of succession, but in light of his serious personal flaws in age when governence was personal I cannot believe that this fact was enough to overcome such failings.

Again I ask people, who I know are on this forum, to discuss with me...

[Prince Cobra]

I have become rather interested in the Valois succession to the French crown.

I had always heard that it was a simple implementation of certain features of salic law, namely that the line had to be passed down through the males of the house.

I know that in 1316 the idea that only a male could ascend the throne of France and that when Philip V died such a practice now seemed legal.

But how did this stop houses of Plantagenet-Capet and Navarre-Évreux from claiming the throne?
It would seem that it did not and that the ascension of Philip de Valois was not legal, even though women could not inherit why couldn't their sons?

France was already in a bad position with England and many other Princes, Philip was not the great man like his father, so why did they allow this man to become king? Even his son's succession was suspect.

As I'm sure you can tell I have been reading far too much of Jonathan Sumption's excellent series on The Hundred Years War.

But despite that influence I am interested in the greater reasons for the decision, apart from the dislike of Edward as an English King.:smash:

In fact, the Valois came to power in 1328. I could not find much in the books I have except that this dynasty was more opened to " feudal influence " which I think means the Valois were more tolerant towards the large feudal lords (kings like Philip IV followed strict policy for unifying the French lands under the French crown; I suppose the first Valois continued it but with slower pace).

About the army: whoever owns the army, he has the power esp. when you are relative of the last king. At 1328 Edward III of England was new as king of England consequently he had more important problems than starting war against France. This happened ten years later, I think.