>>18429321
Burgundy

England obviously, Robert of Artois did nothing wrong. Nor did the King of France have any right to intrude in on the affairs of Scotland or Gascony

>>18429326
>england
>ever being right

>>18429370
Uh oh, Jamal Sanchez McFaggot has a chip on his shoulder. Look out.

>>18429321
England. The French are on the left.

>>18429321
england because they were cooler at the time

>>18429321
The capetians were clear, obviously premeditated aggressors with only a flimsy legal facade as a justification, the plantagenets by the standards of the day were absolutely in the right, not only in harbouring whoever they wanted in england and defending gascony but even in claiming the french throne, with the capetian claim being a clear fabrication based on concepts that were not valid in any sense

France for cleaning border gore

>>18429321
In terms of right to rule, the house of Valois had precedent on their side. Edward III's claim to the throne was flimsy and even he knew that.
However, Philip VI revoking Aquitaine and interfering in Scotland had practically no justification, and the English were completely in their right to fight for it.

>>18431190
>house of Valois had precedent on their side. Edward III's claim to the throne was flimsy
It's the opposite, Edward was rightful claimant, women not inheriting had precedent but that their line couldn't was original and clearly asserted for political reasons

>>18429321
England has genuinely never been in the wrong

>>18430396
Best reply

>>18431368
That’s true, but that doesn’t mean it was necessarily wrong. Edward III’s argument was also advanced for political reasons well after Philip VI has began ruling. And the ultimate problem is that, even if we accept Edward III’s succession logic, he still wouldn’t have the strongest claim. Joan of Navarre’s children would be the rightful rulers of France.

>>18431190
actual best reply (>>18431374 is a homo)

100 years war started out between two rival houses who were both French, languedoil anyway. England was a vassal of Anjou and Normandy, same as any vassal of Paris was a vassal of that city full of garlicky dog turds.
As to who was in the right, I'm going with Paris (actually). England should have seceded and told all the frogs to fuck off and fight it out amongst themselves.

File: Joan_Larroumec.png (545.6 KB)

545.6 KB PNG

>100 years war started out between two rival houses who were both French, languedoil anyway. England was a vassal of Anjou and Normandy

>>18431368
>Edward was rightful claimant
Literally all that matters in this discussion, and everybody likes to ignore it. LOL

File: the ride never ends.png (179.3 KB)

179.3 KB PNG

>England has genuinely never been in the wrong

>>18431762
not an argument

>>18431380
>was also advanced for political reasons well after Philip VI
No, it was advanced on Charles IV's death, because Edward was the legitimate inheritor, but it was effectively vetoed by the french nobility at that time
>Joan of Navarre
If you're rejecting things because they weren't present in 1328, she had no sons at that point

File: eternal shabbos anglo goy boi.png (414.3 KB)

414.3 KB PNG

>not an argument

File: Edward III.jpg (285 KB)

285 KB JPG

he was based

File: Edward_III_of_England.jpg (538.7 KB)

538.7 KB JPG

very based, in fact

>>18429485
>Jamal Sanchez McFaggot
>projection
No, I just know what happened. France had inheritance laws, and based their claim on them. England chimped out.

>>18432294
>France had inheritance laws
False
>and based their claim on them
Also false
>England chimped out.
An outright lie

>>18432311
>france didn't have any laws about succession
>france didn't base their succession on these laws
>england didn't try to usurp the throne themselves in a way that violated said laws

are you a retard?
I understand others ITT saying the real issue was France meddling with Scotland etc, but you are just lying.

>>18432294
>>18432452
No, you said England is never right about anything because you’re a butthurt little faggot over things that didn’t happen in your lifetime.
Also, you clearly have no idea what happened, and you have no idea how medieval succession and law worked.

>>18432571
And yet after all this you haven't offered a rebuttal, just seething and crying. Why are anglos so sensitive and yet so stupid?

>>18432452
France did not, in fact, have any formal succession laws at the time. They were codified later. England didn't violate any laws because there were no such laws to be violated.

>>18429321
England by successor law

>>18432577
Succession laws were not set in stone in those times. There was no one way about it, and it really came down to most of the nobility choosing the Valois claimant. But, the war wasn’t started because Edward III wanted the throne. It wasn’t really about the French throne until much later on. It wasn’t caused by “England chimping out” for the French throne. The conflict started like so many between the kings of France and England: disputes over land in France. The French king was trying to assert his authority over Gascony and to take it away from Edward, which was Edward’s most valuable territory. Edward III claimed the throne of France as a political maneuver to gain the support of disgruntled nobles in Flanders and Burgundy. And it worked. At the height of his victories, what did Edward do? He secured his territorial gains and renounced his claim in the 1360 Treaty of Bretigny.
So there’s a refutation, along with what other anons are saying.